Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive935

Agressive comments over Sciences Po page

I am copying a dispute resolution demand (argument with an IP user, alumni from the institution, only editing its web page):

Copy/pasted quoting

The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses. Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc. I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it. I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable. I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse.

Then, on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง advice, I filed a page protection demand, it was done. Then, because the attacks continued, I asked a protection of the talk page, which was refused (for a good reason):

Copy/pasted quoting

Semi-protection: Persistent personal attacks and insults by multiple IP users. Perhaps I was not clear on my first demand, I would like the insults to stop in talk page too (and edit summaries). --Launebee (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Declined I'm not shutting out your opponents from the discussion. And your claims of sexism are based on thin evidence. NeilN talk to me 10:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC) My main claim was not sexism but strong personnal attacks 'like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning."' And he continues to call me "a troll", a "disruptive editor" (I talked about disruptive editing, insults and sexism, but never qualified him of anything). You can understand I don’t like being countinuously publicly insulted. --Launebee (talk) 11:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC) I understand that and posted a note to the talk page after I declined your request. If the attacks continue, please let me or another admin know. --NeilN talk to me 11:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Could you just let a message on his page, for him to understand that his comments on me are not acceptable and that he would face consequences if he continues? --Launebee (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC) This was done. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

On Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page, we had this discussion:

Copy/pasted quoting
":::Coming to this from RFPP, [1] I am uncomfortable with shutting out one side in a content dispute which only seems to involve two people. I will add something to the IP's talk page --NeilN talk to me 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you! I understand, but it has to stop. --Launebee (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)"

Dear NeilN, you asked me to tell you if it continues, it does. Despite your messabe on his talk page, the user wrote on Kudpung กุดผึ้ง talk page: "I believe him/her to be a dishonest editor and we have proof she is lying in her edits." "when someone calls her a disruptive editor and a liar (which are true for what I was responding to). Anyway I'm through with wasting my time on trolls. I regret that your time (and mine) gets wasted dealing with these kind of people." "It's so obvious this person is a troll" He keeps saying that I’m lying about the sources even though I gave him once again in talk page the newspaper articles dealing with all the "scandals". He keeps saying I’m dishonest when I say I did not understand the question "How come you deleted it anyway?", but I really didn’t.

I would like it to stop, for the third time.

I would also remind the IP user that I never qualified him personnally of anything, I just complained about the personal attacks made to me, not the user himself.

--Launebee (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: I've popped your copy/paste quoting in a box to make it easier to read -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, nothing urgent but for future reference you may use {{ANI-notice}} to notify an editor of an AN/I discussion so that you don't have to create a diff. Hopefully, you won't be needing it, but, it's there for reference. It's also in the big red box at the top of the page. I've gone and separated your notification from Neil's comment, just so that it's plain obvious. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• What people are missing here is that without prejudice to whomever might be right or wrong, I had already Full protected that page to stop the nonsense. When the protection request at RFPP was made and declined, it was already protected. I worked in a university in France for 12 years and I'm staying well out of anything to do with Sciences Po. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification: I declined to protect the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Samtar and Mr rnddude!

My demand concerns here the personal attacks against me, not Sciences Po page. --Launebee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This time, 78.51.193.8 who claims to be another user (but has only this contribution), is attacking me on Sciences Po talk page in a civil manner, but is still attacking me (with no basis by the way). I could answer but I guess it’s pointless. Another IP would show up and a talk page is not the place for this kind of discussion. But once again, it has to stop. My editing on Sciences Po is content focused. --Launebee (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don’t know if it’s considered as a personal attack, but User:SalimJah stated "Launebee's way of editing this article did not strike me as very collaborative" and "I don't think that Launebee helped reach a neutral point of view through his relatively aggressive edits".

As I told them, I improved a lot of things in the articles and added a good ranking of Sciences Po. Still, these alumni are still attacking me for preventing advertisement to be put in the article and because I talked about the huge amount of scandals extensively covered by newspapers. Actually, everyone can verify in the history, in the beginning, I just wanted to have a neutral statement about reputation in the lede, and because there had been a series of reverts about this, I created a section with sources, and little by little wrote the whole section because there was so much to be said. My edits are not "agressive", they just reflect what is in the newspapers.

And ones again, they only complain about a part of my edits, but not when I add a positive ranking of Sciences Po.

They have to stop bashing me.

--Launebee (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I have just seen that the IP user wrote inside my comments , and that he wrote twice that I lie (I deleted, and it’s not my job to put into form his insults). --Launebee (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! By the way, according to him, saying twice that I lie is not personal attacks. At least, if you let him continue on insulting me, not in my text and now he’s deleting my signature! --Launebee (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee; I'm not sure what you mean by if you let him continue on insulting me, but, I'll take a stab at responding to what I think you mean. This page is patrolled by both admins and non-admins who are considered experienced users. The balance of this is I'd say 80% non-admin to 20% admin. As a non-admin aside from comments and attempts at dialogue there's little we can do, the most damning is probably the revert button. I can't stop the editor permanently any more than you can. As soon as an admin arrives they can take proper action. I'll try keep an eye on the page and help out as much as I can. The letting them continue part, however, is something only an admin can act on. Give them rope till an admin gets here. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your most recent edit, the one where you mention The IP user inserted again his insult within my text and deleted my signature! - I see that your sig has been removed, but, haven't been able to identify when and by whom (it was removed earlier than that comment) but their comment appears to have been inserted as a response to yours. It comes right after your signature at 14:16, 19 September 2016 (they've quoted all of your points, that may be tripping you up there). The IP could be far more tactful, the presumption that you are lying is uncivil for a start. I'll post a comment to their ip talk page. See if I'll receive a response. This is a content dispute turned dramatic (due incivility). Mr rnddude (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Sorry for the ill-worded part of sentence then! Actually, he put it after the discussion, but then reinserted it inside my lines. You can see in history, only a boot and him made edits. Thanks! --Launebee (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you are right, he quoted all my text. I put back the insults then... --Launebee (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee give me a couple minutes to separate out the comments, I've reverted part of your edit so that I can move around the comments. Avoid an edit-war hopefully. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Launebee, I've re-instated their comments with an indent, asked them to remove their inferences of lying, and made sure that your sig stays in place where it is. Feel free to ping me if you need anything. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mr rnddude! Let’s wait for the admins now :). --Launebee (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. My original comment can be found here. @Launebee: please be sure that I have nothing against you, nor your willingness to stress the fact that Sciences Po is subject to strong criticisms in the French academic landscape and has faced a number of scandals. However, anybody looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article will recognize that the unregistered user had added a lot of factual content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way. There are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But merely and repeatedly reverting such contributions without any willingness to reach a compromise between your views and those of other editors is counterproductive: (i) it does not help the article get better, (ii) it creates animosity between contributors and drives newbies away, and (iii) it creates unnecessary work on the part of the community trying to solve what eventually becomes a personal dispute. BTW, I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it. As I see it, the article would have been much improved, had some middle ground been reached between both of you. This is a missed opportunity, which was the main message I wanted to convey through my talk page edit. So yes, your style of editing *was* inappropriate to me in this particular case, and I was (naively?) hoping that we could do better, also potentially trying to convince the unregistered user to come back to work on a compromise.

Unrelated comments:

- it would help bring clarity to the conversations if you could indent your talk page answers and keep conversations under a specific header focused on the associated topic.

- how would you know if I'm a Sciences Po alumni? ;) SalimJah (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"I honestly think that your own edits were at least as biased against Sciences Po than the unregistered user's ones were biased in favor of it"

This whole thing of me biased against Sciences Po makes no sense. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Universal.

The IP user said himself that he’s an alumnus. I did not mention you as an alumni but you are clearly biased in favor of Sciences Po by accusing me of being biased in spite of the facts. You keep saying my editing is "agressive" etc., but every information I put is sourced. You know say the other user is biased, but before, you only intervened against some my edits, that you consider to go against Sciences Po.

--Launebee (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did write above that "these alumni are still attacking me". Further, I am *not* attacking you, and did *not* intervene against your edits. I totally welcome your contributions and the sources you include for them. This is not the point. The point is the significant amount of content that this unregistered user added and that you repeatedly deleted without trying to reach consensus. This is not a constructive way to proceed. Reading through it, this material could have been improved upon to enhance the article. Through your reverts, you arguably nourished the animosity of this unregistered user against you (which I do *not* mean to justify, BTW). Regarding the "facts", as I see it, they do not clearly speak in favor of any of you being unbiased. But again, that's not the point. Who can safely pretend to be unbiased about any topic? The magic of Wikipedia is that (necessarily) biased people are willing to collaborate in good faith to create unbiased articles. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view SalimJah (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I repetitively tried to have the IP user to focus on content, but it did not work.

You only intervene in defavour of content that you think can do harm to SP. You never complained about me adding a positive ranking of SP, or agreed with my propositions to delete sentences like ""its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." It’s your right to like SP, but don’t write as if you would be a middle point between me biased and the IP user. You are biased in your choices of intervention, and it’s your right, and I am not biased in any way in my editing, which is forbidden of course, and which you are writing I am.

--Launebee (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

It’s now SalimJah who is writing to me in an agressive way: edit summary --Launebee (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

How the hell is that aggressive? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly not. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn’t it at least not collaborative to write in a summary edit "don’t do it or I will refer to someone else"? If he thinks I’m doing something wrong, he can tell me why, or directly refer it in the discussion here, rather than harshly making such threats, even though I did nothing wrong. --Launebee (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Launebee: "Please keep it in place, as I'm going to refer to it in the moderation thread that you started" I don't think English is your first language. If it isn't then I suggest you read everything twice over keeping WP:AGF in mind. The sentence doesn't mean what you think it means. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I looked at this article as it stands now and as it stood before Launebee started working on it back in July (see this version. Like too many of our articles about universities, the former article was a cesspool of promotion - not a WP article at all, but a brochure for Sciences Po; as it stands now the article is still full of unsourced promotional content that belongs on the Sciences Po website (i.e. the unsourced content about the campuses and the entirely unsourced section about notable people). Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That may be true, but this is not the topic of this thread, which deals with the alleged aggression from which Launebee suffered on the Sciences Po talk page. My claim here is that the way he managed his interactions with the IP user (i.e., massive deletion of potentially useful content and edit warring) is not a workable way to reach consensus and NPOV within articles. This is especially true when dealing with newbies who may not know the rules and need positive feedback and explanations. Otherwise they simply give-up contributing, which is not in our interest. The IP user presented sound arguments in favor of some of his edits, and looking at the revision history, my sense is that the way Launabee managed this discussion is in part responsible for the personal turn that it has taken and which he now complains about. For instance, deleting his (badly formatted) arguments from the talk page without providing explanations as to how to do things right was unlikely to be taken well. Things had already escalated at that point, and such behavior certainly didn't help. SalimJah (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@SalimJah: "massive deletion of potentially useful content": you repeat it everywhere but Jytdog is precisely saying that it’s not "useful content" but advertisement, as I keep explaining to you from the beginning.

@NeilN: You are right I have to assume good faith. But what should I do here? SalimJah has been, for several years, nearly only editing the page of SP or people linked to SP, his now repeating everywhere that I deleted "potentially useful contents" and then that I am biased against SP in my editing. He’s now giving one example of diff to make me look ill-intented even though this thing had been taken care by Mr rnddude with me. All of this because there still is huge problems of advertisement in the lede of the article, I proposed the relevant changes in talk page, but they are drowing it in a lot of text on me being bias, so that we forget the actual content of the article. I opened a dispute resolution on content, but they say it’s already taken care of here.

@NeilN:, @Mr rnddude: and @Jytdog:: Could you tell us what do you think of my propositions of editing there? It would be really appreciated. There still is a lot of things to do, but take care of the lede, especially the false claim "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe." is the most important I guess.

--Launebee (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad we can eventually get back to substance, Launebee. :) Just commented on your points. However, I strongly encourage you not to bite newbies in the future. SalimJah (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not a new user but an old single-purpose account ;). --Launebee (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I was obviously not referring to myself, but to the IP user with whom you argued about the Sciences Po page. However, I do start to find your repeated insinuations about me being biased, aggressive or not legitimate annoying. You have no evidence for it. Please stop. SalimJah (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me remind you that the IP user was insulting me, and that admins and volunteers told him to stop. I made no insinuation, I said it clearly: you edits are only linked to SP since several years and you are only attacking me personally on the things that are not positive for SP. --Launebee (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. So it seems that we can't agree, neither on substance (see the talk page), nor on process (see above and the talk page). And now you drag me into this personal argument once again, putting my good faith and legitimacy into question. The fact that I've been editing the page in the past is no evidence that I have a personal agenda, nor is your (unfounded) claim that I'm a Sciences Po alumni. All I've been trying to do is restore a positive working atmosphere in the talk page while making some progress on the issue. You behaved in a similar way with the IP user, imposing your POV with strength while brushing the evidence he was trying to present aside (see my description of the way you managed your interactions with him above + the talk page and history of the Sciences Po article). You eventually dragged him into a personal fight with you, not the other way around, and you won by having him leave. You also claimed several times that I was attacking you personally (that's actually the very reason why I had to post here in the first place). I'm not. Pure and simple. I refuse to play this game. So, what we need now is the assessment of the extended community. Anybody out there who would be willing to review the arguments presented here as well as the discussion on the Sciences Po talk page? SalimJah (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You kept and keep saying my edits in SP page were "aggressive", that I have POV and that I am biased against SP, without any proof (and you won’t find any because it’s false, and your links to the talk page proves nothing). Obviously you are not here to "restore a positive working atmosphere" but to "defend" SP.

You said yourself that "us", it’s an organisation with a SP adress, and you were working for them. It seems from there that admins already told you not to do ads for SP.

Anyway, I think this discussion can be closed, because it leads to nothing, let’s only discuss of content on the talk page. But some third opinion would be helpful indeed.

--Launebee (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Murder Cat

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

---

Murder Cat (talk · contribs): Please see the recent contributions of this new user. They are creating lots of new user talk pages for new users with the text "Congrats, you are the most recent to make a Wikepedia account. Enjoy that for at most a few seconds before someone else joins." Seems like a sock puppet to me. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Certainly 100%-proof WP:NOTHERE.

And almost as certainly footwear focussed too.

_Muffled ^Pocketed 07:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Let me know if/when it reappears. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 editing by User:Scholar of Record

New editor Scholar of Record (talk · contribs · block log) is editing a variety of Iowa-related pages to add links and references to the work of author Zachary Michael Jack. Some of the edits appear almost constructive at a glance [2] [3]. However, most are clearly promotional [4], [5], [6]. One edit includes an Amazon link [7]. The user has not responded to talk page messages. agtx 02:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've warned him for a edit for another article, Mechanicsville, Iowa, for the exact same thing as mentioned earlier([8]).— JJBers (talk) 03:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Scholar of Record has posted a comment on my talk page, but it does not inspire confidence. agtx 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Anon. user mass deleting sourced information

The following discussion is closed. 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 anon user, Special:Contributions/2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E has been mass removing information from various articles containing information cited from Influx Magazine, claiming that it is "spam" [9] [10] [11] [12], quoting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine as reason that somehow everything that the source says is "spam".

I had tried explaining twice to the user that even if a website is not notable to be included on Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it is a non-verifiable source [13] [14].

Even if the source is deemed unverifiable and inappropriate (which IMO is far from that), I feel that the user's mass deletion is highly pointy and disruptive.

I have refrained from reverting the user's edits further than I have already as I am not sure if the edits are exempt from 3RR. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The user has also been removing sourced information from other sources: [15] Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have explained this multiple times but this person keeps readding spam links. For years Steve Pulaski or someone associated with him has been adding spam links to his reviews to various articles. Some use a non-notable website, (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Influx_Magazine), while others just link to his message forum (like here). Here are a few of the IPs

• 75.57.175.40
• 76.202.208.65
• 76.202.210.4
• 2600:1008:B014:3292:2340:677:FECD:C84A

You will notice that their ONLY submissions are these spam links. I am removing them.

1)I'm not any of those users. 2) How are these spam? Are they self-promotional? Are they plain rubbish? Look at those sources carefully, we can see the names of the people who wrote them, and at least at face value they are legit opinions. Who are you to call them spam? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say you were any of those users. I said you kept readding what I was removing. How aren't they spam? They serve ONLY to promote Steve Pulaski which is why his name seems to need to be mentioned in every single instance. When a person adds links to their own writing, it is self-promotional. Literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain HOW they were being used to promote Steve Pulaski (whoever the heck he is)? Just because the links are about one guy giving opinions on things of a wide range, from movies to Hillsong?? Have you thought of the fact that the users in question might have just quoted him as a source? The things you deleted don't even try to paint him in any greater light than just calling him the maker of these mere opinions. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you really this stubborn that you will ignore all evidence? The IPs that add these reviews ONLY ADD THESE REVIEWS. In what way would that lead to literally ANY interpretation other than that they are promotional additions? And for the record all of them are movies, the IPs didn't add anything to Hillsong, they spammed Hillsong: Let Hope Rise which is a film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are a few more Wikipedians who removed these same spam links:

• Barte did it here
• Carniolus did it here
• Efyeahimamarxist did it here

You can see from the edit summaries they were labeled "non-notable", "non-noteworthy", and WP:SPS. Should you go yell at them, too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:967:864A:ABAD:160E (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that whether a source is notable is not connected to whether a source is reliable. As far as I can tell, there's no reason to not use Influx Magazine as a source. DS (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:.:So that means if I edit a bunch of movie articles and I paste all the sources from Roger Ebert's website rogerebert.com, it means Roger Ebert is a spammer and is promoting himself? WP:SPS says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. So maybe you should read [16]. Whatever "level of experience" he is, I doubt that his opinions are non-notable enough to be excluded from Wikipedia. This Steve Pulaski is not Roger Ebert, but is Steve un-notable enough to be excluded? My point is no. ^{Yeah, I think you should yell at them too.} Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Barte, Carniolus and Efyeahimamarxist's edits gave reasons for their edits that may (or may not) be valid. Whatever, they have not been challenged. Beyond that, it is an irrelevance because your sole reason for deleting vast amounts of material has been challenged. The references are not spam in any shape of form because they are not promoting any product. They are just a review for which no evidence has been offered that they are unreliable. And your claim above that it is promoting the reviewer is just plain nonsense. --Elektrik Fanne 13:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

* The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located [[here

(Oh bloody hell. I hit the escape key, just after I realised I'd posted the above. That would have worked in 1998.)

• The version of the article as it was immediately before it got deleted (minus the categories and maintenance tags) is now located here. It would appear to me that this magazine/website is essentially self-published. Judge for yourself whether this is a source that should be used on Wikipedia. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Shirt58: I probably won't decide for my own self. I was referred to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so depending on the outcome of this discussion I might choose to raise the issue with this source there. Nevertheless I am hoping for a conclusive outcome to this content dispute. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: My main issue with the anon. is not regarding the deletion of Influx Magazine, but the anon. user mass removing sourced information coming from this source. I personally support the deletion of Influx Magazine as per GNG, but the verfiability and reliability of the sourced information is not dependent on the notability of the source subject's on Wikipedia. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• @Shirt58: Also all of the content that was deleted by the anon. wasn't referenced from the deleted Wikipedia article Influx Magazine, but they were referenced from the actual website of Influx. So I appreciate your effort retrieving the deleted content, but I'm not sure how helpful it will be. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 03:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 from User:Old_Lanky - "moron"

The following discussion is closed. 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 from User:Old_Lanky per this diff [17]. An editor with a background of trouble, see this diff [18], that needs further resolution. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• A one time use of the word "moron" might be uncivil, but it isn't grounds for sanctions as they've already indicated they "won't trouble the article again.". Single, rude comments are best ignored. What he did in 2013 has no real connection here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the sort of person who would send a message like this to drive another editor off the site can only be a moron. Especially as his past history strongly supports the view. For example, his attitude problem her and in numerous other edits. I have nothing else to add. Old Lanky (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I count a second use of the word "moron"!! I recommend a one week block for User:Old Lanky to allow him to cool off. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

A moron who can count to three! Can he make it all the way to four? Don't bother. I've just resigned from this shambolic site that gives free rein to morons (five) who know everything and understand nothing. Wikipedia is crap. No wonder it has no credibility in academic spheres or, indeed, in any sphere inhabited by intelligent people. Bye now. Old Lanky (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You both need to cool your jets. Lanky, back off the colorful adjectives, and Kirks, your comment is no less offensive than using the word "moron", you are just putting lipstick on a pig and hiding the incivility with flowery language. I'm not blocking anyone for the above but you both need to knock it off. You aren't children. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

-.- Seriously Kirks? What are you, five? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Admins for your support. I think this last post from User:Old Lanky, see here [19], says everything that anyone needs to know. This has been a tough time for us all, but I think we have come through it stronger and wiser. KirksKeyKard (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Kirk, all this started over the single use of the word "moron" after your posted a message that was no less offensive, so from my perspective, this is a fight you started. I wouldn't be so smug if I were you. Neither of you have been shining stars of collaboration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay everyone, this fire's been put out, so there's nothing left to see here. Admins --> Please CLOSE. Thank you. KirksKeyKard (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit-war with jytdog over Teledermatology

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

I'm trying to update the teledermatology page to include two recent (2013 and 2015) studies around efficacy of teledermatology. Editor jytdog has rejected these edits without explanation. I have included the links to the peer-reviewed journal publications on the talk page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23785643 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24923283 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YungCoconut (talk • contribs) 04:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @YungCoconut: This appears to be a premature escalation. It's normal to give it much more than a few hours on the article's talk page before escalating to AN/I (and WP:DRN would be a more normal escalation path for a simple content dispute, or WP:RSN for issues with sources), unless there's already a reasonably serious incident. Personally, I'd have used {{uw-ewsoft}} for a new user, rather than {{uw-3rr}}, but regardless of that, you need to use the talk page and allow time for discussion as the first step in these situations. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Murph9000 (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@YungCoconut: Also, it is not true that Jytdog reverted without explanation. Both his edit summaries have clear pointers to WP:MEDRS. Please carefully read the second paragraph which starts with, "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out, being on Pubmed is *not* an indication of reliability. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pubmed aside, being published in Dermatology Practical & Conceptual and Acta Dermato-Venereologica, which are peer-reviewed journals with academic editorial boards, should be a sign of reliability per WP:MEDRS. De728631 (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • From looking at the study, it looks like a specific application of a commercial device? Which I assume is why Jytdog prompted for a review rather than a single study. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, Softlavender has raised the same issue at the article talk. De728631 (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Both should be trouted, at least, for edit warring. Jytdog especially, should be following the advice s/he throws at others, not to edit war. Both reverted at least twice, contrary to WP:EW.--Elvey^(t•c) 02:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that comment from an editor who only made the edit warring problem worse with their own edit warring, that sounds rather silly. The expectation should have been that after Jytdog's first revert, editors who wanted to justify inclusion needed to gain consensus for it on the talk page. I'd give YungCoconut leeway here for this incident being a new editor, but Elvey should have known better than to jump in antagonizing the situation and come back here asking for a trout. That sounds like attempted WP:HOUNDING or WP:BAITING to me.

There’s not much more Jytdog could have done differently in the face of two editors trying to reinsert disputed content without gaining talk page consensus, though this does seem to suggest more eyes are needed on Elvey’s behavior considering they’ve previously been sanctioned and has a history hounding editors.[20][21] Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editor / edit warring at Andrea Bargnani

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

---

IMO, User:JoshDonaldson20 is being very disruptive and clearly edit warring at Andrea Bargnani. The content in question that JoshDonaldson20 is persisting on adding to the article has been reverted and disputed by multiple users, yet JoshDonaldson20 is determined to keep the content in the article no matter the reasons or retorts being presented to him. Myself, Sabbatino, Bagumba and IP 188.2.133.143 have reverted content placed in the Andrea Bargnani article. As of now, it is 4 to 1 in favor of not having the content there, yet JoshDonaldson20 continues to re-add it. I was in a back-and-forth revert spree with JoshDonaldson20 before deciding to cease as it wasn't worth my time and I understand how disruptive and pointless editing warring is. I was going to move on from the matter until IP 188.2.133.143 got involved and there is now an edit war between them. I warned JoshDonaldson20 at his talk page to stop edit warring and instead discuss the matter as it would be his duty to do so as his content is what has been disputed many times now. I invited JoshDonaldson20 to discuss as WT:NBA where I had earlier started a thread regarding the content. Nothing came of that – JoshDonaldson20 decided instead to just re-add it. This is clearly disruptive editing and blatant edit warring which has tarnished the edit history of the Andrea Bargnani article. Outside mediation is required here – perhaps a time out for JoshDonaldson20 or full protection at Andrea Bargnani? DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It is now 5 to 1 with User:Vítor the latest to revert the content [22]. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, content dispute with one party edit-warring against consensus. This is for WP:ANEW. I'll close this. 19:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC) _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked. (Is that you again, DaHuzyBru? Please remember, it's four tildes. Anyway, you haven't closed it.) We can skip WP:ANEW for now, the bureaucracy isn't intrinsically valuable. JoshDonaldson20 has already been blocked twice for edit warring in the past few months, so I made it 72 hours this time. Bishonen | talk 20:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. 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:Spshu

Recently, I have looked over the scenario at Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, and I am concerned. Spshu violated WP:3RR by reverting an edit made by Frietjes to his preferred revision. This wouldn't be a major problem if it wasn't for the fact that he has already been blocked seven times for edit warring. This incident just shows that he possibly has no intention of changing.

And while discussion is under way at Talk:Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States#IBID-type citations, Spshu has been retaliatory and a tad hostile throughout most of it.

Spshu has been around for almost ten years, which is long enough for him to understand that this kind of behavior in not acceptable. Please discuss and see what action needs to be taken. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be better addressed at WP:AN3.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Already address there: existing AN3 report with a page block. Electricburst1996 is not happy with the administrator's decision to the point of question their judgement. --Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I had the option of blocking both editors or protecting the page. If both are blocked then there is no way the problem is going to get solved. If the page is protected then at least they have an opportunity for discussion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang for Hounding by Electricburst1996

Electricburst1996 has been warned about harassing/hounding me over my block log, which all of which can be explained. He has been retaliatory about every encounter with me. He has reverted posts at AIV and talk page discussions. The first time he got me block by removing talk page discussion and not allow point that out in my defense. He then demanded an indefinite block while I was serving that block, which boomeranged on him. He purposefully started an edit war on a page that I went to get away from him, reports the matter to AIV], suppressed posts there ([23] [24]) then turned down & reveled that he did not like that I force him to discuss matters which lead no where as he won't. One administrator stated that disturbed him regarding the removal of my AIV posts. (" I don't like the pattern of removal of comments at WP:AIV by Electricburst1996.") Another administrator stated that it disturbed them that Electricburst1996 purposefully force that edit war to expressly to get me indefinitely block ("Unlike the others who were pinged, I have a rather good idea why I was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. I'm particularly concerned about this. Expecting to be blocked for one's own conduct in the hopes that the other party gets indeffed? Seriously? Electricburst1996 should re-think their approach to collaborative editing. Huon (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC) " revealed), but he continues to just pop in to issues that the only interest is to stir up other editors against me (like during this current issue)] or file 3RR reports. Canvassing for votes to get me banned (Signal_boost, [25]). If you want more, I can dig more up. I would have provided diffs but given all the moves to archive of some of the above. Also, I just want to give you a taste of what he is up to as far as hounding me as it would be just about a week by week action report. And given an admin to shoot first then not question later. Spshu (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I... have no words for this. How are you making yourself look better by bringing all this up? First, make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked, THEN make a case against me. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 19:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No, we do not operate on the principle of "guilty until proven innocent", and it's never appropriate to make a comment like make a case as to why you SHOULDN'T be blocked. Without even looking at this dispute—although if it's only in relation to a single page, I don't see why you think protection doesn't address the issue—if I see one more crack like that out of Electricburst1996 there will be a boomerang headed your way. ANI is a dispute resolution forum, not a mechanism to punish people whom you don't feel WP:AN3 is treating harshly enough. ‑ Iridescent 20:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Would long-term behavioral issues fall under ANI? Just wanted to know before I decide to withdraw. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, depending on the circumstances, but you've given no indication of one existing. Content disputes definitely do not fall into the ANI remit, and edit-warring comes under WP:AN3 except under exceptional circumstances. To be frank, this looks suspiciously like you running to the other parent because AN3 didn't give you the answer you wanted to hear. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, let's say an editor who's been around for ten years doesn't have a particularly clean track record for edit warring that spans a few years (let's say three or four). What kind of standard should they be held up to? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To exactly the same standard as every other editor—a block log is not the Mark of Cain. Either someone is problematic or they aren't. Since the page in question was protected, has Spshu edited problematically in any way? Unless your answer to that is "yes" and you have diffs to back it up, I strongly suggest you drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Well, he has refused to own up to the fact that he violated WP:TPO by editing another user's discussion comment, and has made incendiary remarks about other editors. Would that count, or is it past the sell-by date? ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst already attempt to recruit the two other editors over these issues (and more editors over other issues). TPO was explained repeatedly to Eburst that the other editor had in effect edited my post (I quoted them) thus that editor should have properly refactored. Eburst then violates TPO and reverts when I edit my talk page section title over the issue. The other editor involved did not want to get involved when he previous pinged them when Eburt piggy back these complaints on another editor complaining over a good faith dispute then ping/canvassed those editors involved. Neither editor felt any interests in pursuing either issue; one ever considered disruptive. Spshu (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I also dug up these talk page comments he left:

• Removing warning against vandalism on your talk page, NeutralHomer; really rich when you have no clue. That is what Rollosmokes did when originally confronted with warnings against his vandalism of multiple pages while he entreated that the discussion should go to the TV Station project talk page. (Perhaps, you should read above what he had to say about that. And effectively YOU now.) Now the both of you refuse to acknowledge the discussion there that PTEN is a network. Spshu 15:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• No it does not. As per your article, Thomas did not open Kewpee's in 1923 and did not own that location until 1944 and was not Haloburger until 1967. All in your article. Each change is noted my version. Your are making a mountain out of a mole hill. In this case, Haloburger didn't come full formed as per your article; it was more evoluationary. I don't understand why in the world you don't understand your own article!!!! Spshu (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• At this point you are being disruptive and are causing the edit war to get your way. See Wikipedia:Overlink crisis as why not to have too much lapping navboxes (look for the "Morocco had gained 12 separate navboxes". Animated films are covered in another navbox and were link (as is Marvel Animation directly) to in the Marvel Films see also section in my edit. The animate film link takes them to Marvel Animation Section: Animated Marvel Features which has a list of the animated films and the article has the Marvel animated production navbox. Additional there will most likely more Marvel live action films and animated films. If you set such an overlap standard then "overlink crisis" will return. Thus my use of redunate as a reason to remove them. --Spshu (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• I end up having to beating the dead horse because fail to understand that this issue has been decided repeatly against your position and your continuing to edit war over the issue. Spshu (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• ←Where is your evidence that it still exists, King Shadeed? Your own "proof" is to latch on to two marketing executive titles and ignore the presents of two chairs for NBC Entertainment and NBC Broadcasting and that the page is for NBC ENTERTAINMENT not NBCU TV Group. Neither person's job description in their bio indicates that they jointly run NBCU TV Group but that they report directly to NBCU's CEO.Spshu (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Going about trying to eliminate articles you don't like, by turning them into redirect, and edit then to make it worse edit warring to try to get what you want, is rather wrong of you. You also tag articles that have references proving they are notable, with notability tags. Dream Focus 22:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• First, you are not assuming good faith nor have you read any of the discussion linked above nor can you prove that I don't like them. Prehaps, I like WP more and don't go around making WP what I want, but follow the guidelines. Also, it takes two to edit war. To a degree, it was a discussion taking place with the edit summaries. If you if looked at the edit summaries would show that the other party had no reason. Second, having references doesn't make them notable. The sources need be of significate coverage not routine coverage. I could launch an attack that you start articles that aren't notable, but I have not, instead I tag it as unnotable giving you a chance to make it notable or move it into a notable and related article. This is what I did with the Imprint article, create an article to hold this info until notable sources guidline is met. Would you preferred that I took your new article directly to deletion? Spshu (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is you who is edit warring as you have not waited for any other opinion. You were reversed for not doing so. You acknowledge that company do declare "new" companies that already exist. So once again, you are trying to blame me for your actions. Yup, you can have it your way. Spshu (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
• So you demand that people address you with your full legal name, first middle and last name, every time they address you? But, you want to be addressed as Stereorock here, which is not your legal name. Why are you using that? WP:COMMONNAME is the key here. So, some how you are telling me you can not tell that the call signs refer to TV stations in a TV station article? Spshu (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• You think that AfD has any thing to do with hate Disney? Really? Did you dig up all the Disney article that I revamp from being nearly unsourced? Nope, because the AfD was all that you could come up with. What is in the TV Guide can preempted, so no that doesn't mean that they air nor any adding any references. Spshu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Because you posted MY WARNING to you. That would look stupid for me to leave a notice from me to myself. You can see that you are just a name caller (a two year old activity) since I have left every 3RR notice that has been post to my talk page, EVEN ones that editors have posted falsely. You did not join the discussion open since 21:31, 15 March 2015, you ignored the edit summary directing you to the MOS, you ignored the link to Other Stuff before going over 3RR. Leaving the 3RR notice when you have done none of what the notice requires of you. So it even greater hypocrisy that you call me a vandal or a hypocrite. You are disruptive for disruption's sake. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
• You will cease leaving false warning on talk page. I will not be intimated by your miss use of warnings. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Links provided for context, interpret however you want. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

So since every diff you've provided predates your AN3 request, your answer is in fact "no". We don't do punishments here; drop the stick. ‑ Iridescent 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(adding) In fact, Electricburst1996, it appears that your last block for edit warring was less than two months ago. Do you really think "look at the block log to see how unreasonable this person is" is a game you want to be playing? ‑ Iridescent 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That was the one I indicated that he reported me to AIV for, removed my post at AIV, did not discuss, ran to 3RR (after AIV did not work) expecting that he would get a block in an attempt to get me permanently blocked (complaining to the admin when he did not get that). Spshu (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can this discussion be closed? ElectricBurst hasn't responded and it's just a drop-the-stick situation. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting closure

Can we get this discussion closed? The situation has blown over, and there's no sense in taking action. Unless something more serious in nature crops up, we should put this report out of its misery. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Repetitive Hoax articles for channel Hum TV

Info.Channels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is creating various Wikipedia articles that doesn't even exist, i have taged them with {{Hoax}} and warned the user but he can or may erase the tag, so i wanted to notify here. I have searched for an articles that user created, but there is not even a single source, reference or even a slightest detail on that articles and yet he claimed that these are TV series to be aired or aired on Hum TV, adding made-up articles name, stories outline and linking the articles with real actors. I have been monitoring Hum TV and its contents for quite a time and have built many TV series articles, but never had any information regarding those TV series that user created. Following are the articles that user allegedly created by giving them fake names, fake plot outlines, and linking them to real actors, that have never been a part of such productions.

• Maroon-e-Wafaa
• Moch-e-Kunjoosi
• Chohat
• Dil-e-Humwaar

Look into that issue as soon as possible. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 2:56, October 1, 2016 (UTC)

This is now being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir'khan12. The four hoaxes you listed have been deleted, along with another nine that I found. I believe that's all of the hoaxes created by the now 18 known socks of Amir'khan12, but I can't be certain they didn't also introduce false information into existing articles. It's kind of difficult to sort through since he occasionally adds something that's true. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor making direct threats of physical 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.

---

You made this edit summary Don't you dare call me a "Pakistani POV" pusher again, you will find that you are not that "Bulletproof".

I never called him a Pakistani POV pusher. I said "reverting Pakistani POV edit". He is making ridiculous excuses on his talk page, how he interpreted my username, and making false allegations that I called him POV pusher. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• BoomerangI have been following the Nom's contributions ever since he popped up and went straight to an AFD. This should be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG. The editor in question has already explained to the Nom that calling another editor "POV pusher" leads to a block/ban on wikipedia. Nom is now trying to create a mountain out of a molehill. If he does not understand the meaning of this phrase and only takes the "literal" meaning of every single English word that is said to him, he has serious competency issues. WHEN A PERSON WRITES SOMETHING IN QUOTES "" HE IS IMPLYING THAT THE LITERAL MEANING SHOULD NOT BE USED. I would like to recommend that the Nom clicks this link and goes to the definition of "bulletproof" at dictionary.com. It will show him that this word when used in an informal setting like the internet means Informal. safe from failure; without errors or shortcomings and beyond criticism: E.G a bulletproof system; a bulletproof budget. Requesting a speedy close so that this is not turned into the "mountain" I told about earlier. TouristerMan (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Every verb/adjective has some informal meaning. We use the most common meaning. A username as Sheriff will use the obvious meaning. Taking his username too seriously. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that an administrator issue a firm warning against both these editors for disruptive behavior, who both need a reminder that this is a collaborative project where editors are expected to assume good faith of our colleagues. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 I agree TouristerMan (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I assume that you will cease all disruptive editing in the future? Wonderful. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 can you hint at my disruptive contributions? I just put in stuff about entertainment and tourism. Which edits caused disruption? (I would like to apologize beforehand if any edits were disruptive). TouristerMan (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You were warned for edit warring in the past although that was 2 or so months ago and I'm not sure if this behaviour has continued. Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@TouristerMan: That would be your defense above of an allusion to violence against another editor. I consider your comment to be overly pedantic and dismissive of a genuine concern. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nil Einne no I was never warned. I do my best to stay away from controversy. I am more of a user than an editor. I edit only when I have complete sources etc. 2 months ago I had not even created an account? How can you warn someone who is not even editing? did you by any chance drop by my house and warn me mano a mano? 2 months ago I was not on wikipedia. @User:Cullen328 what defence? You said both the nom and the editor who made the statement should be warned. I said yes they should both be warned. I could have commented on this debate on the TP of Sherrif is in Town as I stalk his TP, but I thought it will be just a simple case of two editors moving on with life. But when the Nom came here I made my comment. I do not defend anyone, I speak the truth simple as that. TouristerMan (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

TouristerMan, why don't you accept that you had problems with my AFD votes? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Bulletproof Batman I have problems with your competency. If you do not understand what a phrase within Quotes implies. You should learn that before engaging in discussion, as this is quite common in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

99.99999999999999999999999% of the people use the word "Bulletproof" in one context, while 0.000000000000001% of the times it used in another context. Wikipedia uses formal English. You are only trying to divert the issue here as Sheriff and you share the same POV. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulletproof Batman no you are wrong. it is used quite frequently. you are telling us you are not competent in English. TouristerMan (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I already explained to the nom that I did not mean what he is thinking I meant. My comment was suggestive of a block under WP:ARBIPA in case he continued with his comments about my ethnicity and nothing more than that, as it is obvious you cannot shoot someone on Wikipedia and neither do I think he had literal meanings in mind when he created his username. "Bulletproof" also means "impregnable" or "invulnerable". Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:TouristerMan is blanking the articles that I have created

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

---

He is following my edits due to above discussion. can an administrator block him please? Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. He never edited these articles or had any interest in those subjects. --Bulletproof Batman (talk) 07:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulletproof Batman Redirects have been created according to policy. An admin will close this. Goodbye TouristerMan (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@TouristerMan: Absolutely; could you indicate the precise policy? And it would be rather unseemly to edit war over Drosera affinis... _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi usually palaeontological species are covered in genus articles. I have seen this in a large number of articles. I search for a certain species, then I am redirected to the main(genus) article. The puposes of redirect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects number 1 and three cover this I assume. TouristerMan (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Species articles are fine, especially if they have an image and some content that unique to that species. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak yes that is why I did not edit any article that gave information unique to that species. Can you take a look and revert any changes that you do not like? TouristerMan (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I think he is LanguageXpert. He commented on that SPI, after this edit war on subjects where he never edited before. Bulletproof Batman (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Advocacy-pushing disruption over at UK Independence Party

The following discussion is closed. 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 on the UK Independence Party (UKIP) is experiencing regular disruptive editing from User:RoverTheBendInSussex, a self-professed UKIP member. Multiple reliable sources authored by academic political scientists and published in peer-reviewed outlets testify that the party are nationalist or British nationalist in ideological orientation. User:Rover is unhappy with this, and has been edit warring over a period of ten days to remove "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" from the article infobox and replace it with either "British patriotism" or "Civic nationalism" ([26]; [27]; [28]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [32]; [33]). Despite their repeated claims to the contrary, they have provided no reliable sources to support their claim. There is a talk page consensus of other editors that "British nationalism"/"Nationalism" should be in the infobox, and Rover has not overturned this, nor gained a single editor to support their calls for change. The issue has been extensively discussed at the article talk page; the option of an RfC has been offered to User:Rover but they have ignored this and continued to edit war. Myself, User:Snowded, and User:Bondegezou [update at 19:19: and now User:Elektrik Fanne] have been reverting their edits; in my case that has probably pushed me into edit war territory, for which I apologise, but I was trying to uphold consensus. Rover's behaviour is textbook disruptive editing—refusal to "get the point", tendentious editing, acting against consensus, resisting requests for comment, and an opposition to verifiability—it's all there. Given that this has been continuing for some time now, I thought it time to get an administrator involved. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I recall events, User:RoverTheBendInSussex removed "nationalism", which triggered a discussion on Talk, and Rover participated in that. However, it soon became apparent that everyone else participating was happy with the tag, and Rover's evidence against didn't hold up. After a few days of debate during which the label was mostly absent from the article, I re-added the label in this edit on 16:05, 25 Sep. Rover reverted here two days later. A few hours later, having reviewed the Talk page and only seeing a stronger consensus for this label, I re-added it here. About 37 hours later, we get to today: Rover re-removed, User:Midnightblueowl re-added and Rover re-removed in short succession. So, I agree with Midnightblueowl that Rover is ignoring consensus here. Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

There haven't been a lot of people involved in the Talk discussion, as is common these days, but you can see it at Talk:UK_Independence_Party#British_Nationalism. Rover made his case, this was examined at some length, everyone else rejected the arguments, Rover got a bit ad hominem-y. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• That whole talk page conversation appears to be RoverTheBendInSussex arguing against a consensus of other editors. There also seems to be an element of WP:IDHT in that he is repeating the same arguments that have previously been rejected. Coupled with the serious edit-warring and this edit, I would say a topic-ban on the article is warranted to prevent any further wasting of other editor's time. Someone who admits to being a UKIP supporter, edits the article, and then posts this edit summary "Leave editing this page to impartial individuals" is clearly not concerned with WP policies. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • In the talk section you didn't admit you had a bias in this instance, although several comments you made did present leakage. The issue I have with this is you have ignored multiple links I have posted, you previously agreed on "civic nationalism", and then when somebody else who happens to be a Labour Party supporter pushed for "Nationalist" or "British Nationalist", you went back on your word and changed it again. It is worth noting you seem to have a special interest updating "Radical Right" politics, and extreme left wing politics, be it; Vladimir Lenin, Ken Livingstone, Karl Marx, Mao Zedong, and others of an extreme left ideology. Are you a supporter of left-wing politics, such as Jeremy Corbyn, Socialism and the UK Labour Party. If so, I question your impartiality in updating the UKIP page. [34] What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP. I have clearly stated facts that directly contradict the ideology of "British Nationalist" or "Nationalist". In the simplest explanation, how can UKIP be "Nationalist" if written into their Constitution is reconnection with the Commonwealth [35], and a policy of Global trade. Not to mention building partnership connections with Global nations? [36] [37] and immigration [38]. The clearest definition of Nationalism is; "a shared group feeling in the significance of a geographical and sometimes demographic region seeking independence for its culture or ethnicity that holds that group together." This description does not fit UKIP's policies or mandate. Regardless of which anti-UKIP tabloid or pro-EU/anti-UKIP academic research you post. Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP, and is pushing for a ban against editing the page so people of his ilk, who oppose UKIP openly can change the page status to push a negative rhetoric and vision of UKIP. Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP. What does a Wikipedia user have to admit before their opinion is deemed biased against a page they are adding. The SNP are defined as being Civic Nationalists whilst their supporters resort to near daily anglophobia and violence online, and have been videoed/had radio interviews expressing both verbal and physical violence against people with alternate opinions. [39]
      [40]
      [41]
      [42]
      [43]
      [44] Yet they get defined as being Civic Nationalists on their page, a status I felt fair to be added to UKIP's page. Yet UKIP, the party that has had no hand in Nationalist violence on air or in the general public are defined as being the more tribal form of Nationalism. How utterly pathetic! User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (GMT)
      • It would probably be a good idea if you didn't import your arguments on the UKIP talk page to here; this is not the venue. You appear to have three problems; 1: you are accusing others of having a POV when you clearly have one yourself; 2: You are edit-warring against multiple other editors against talk page consensus; 3: Your use of sources appears to be veering into WP:SYNTH, something that has already been pointed out on the talk page. You have two choices here; either you accept the consensus that is against you here (or open an RfC, something that has already been proposed), or your editing of the page will need to be restricted in order to prevent the huge time-sink that has already occurred. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I know that this probably isn't the place but I do want to counter some of the slanderous falsities that Rover has promoted here, lest uninvolved editors mistake them for fact. "You have ignored multiple links I have posted". False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist. It was Rover who completely and utterly misrepresented these five sources in order to promote their own personal view of UKIP. "What you are pushing for is a not clearly definable description of UKIP". What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals. What I am also "pushing for" is the acceptance that there is a consensus on the Talk Page which should not be contravened by the unilateral actions of one editor. "Everyone who has supported this ideology on the UKIP page has been either a Labour supporter, Scottish Nationalist or Welsh Nationalist, all of whom oppose UKIP" - I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition; anyone who seems to disagree with Rover's behaviour is immediately accused of being a lefty with a strong anti-UKIP bias. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
          • I wonder if the most logical action here would simply to impose a 0RR restriction on Rover. This, I think, would be the best way of proceeding without preventing him from commenting on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
            • "False. Myself and several other editors read each and every one of those links; there were five in total. In each and every case the link did not contain the information that Rover was claiming of it, and in one it actually directly contravened the information that they were claiming of it, for it made the specific claim that UKIP are nationalist." - No. Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism. Which discussed UKIP within the context of the article about Civic Nationalism. "What I am "pushing for" is the use of reliable sources written by academics who have actually conducted a great deal of research into UKIP and published their findings in peer-reviewed journals." - I provided links by the University of Cardiff and Fabian Society. Both those links were academic reports. "I have no idea where Rover plucked this one from, for it is sheer supposition" - Try reading editors, edit histories. "Midnightblueowl has admitted a clear bias with regard to UKIP". ~ "No I haven't. This is yet another blatant falsity." - 6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue, but I think that a topic ban would be a good idea." You have not come to a consensus, and your answer is to go over the head of a editor who doesn't make a habit of disagreeing in this manner, has been editing on Wikipedia for years and has provided plenty of counter argument to what you wish to add to the info-box. None of which you have provided a counter-argument for. Look above. You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate. My concern is people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon. The status has been on Wikipedia for a day and someone has already screencaptured it to attack UKIP proving my point. [45] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2016 (GMT)
              • Declaring their political allegiance to UKIP then turning around and questioning Midnightblueowl's impartiality in updating the UKIP page kind of smacks of hypocrisy doesn't it? Blackmane (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
              • "You, and other editors just want to block me as I have provided a counter-argument to what you have claimed which is NOT accurate." Let's get this clear - no-one wants to block you. They do, however, want you to stop your edit-warring and associated disruption on the UKIP article, which almost certainly will lead to a block or topic-ban if it continues. The choice is yours. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Each of those links were about Civic Nationalism." This is either a deliberate lie or reflects a total inability to understand the sources in question. Anyone can look at these sources: these are the two which Rover has claimed analytically describe UKIP as "civil nationalist" ([46]; [47]), and these are the three that Rover claims support their claim that UKIP adhere to an ideology of "British patriotism" ([48] [49] [50]). As anyone can see, none of these claims are substantiated by the links in question, and this is something that has been told to Rover on many occasions now. One can also see how Rover deliberately misrepresents sources with their link to a Twitter post above; they claim that "people would use this inaccurate status to misportray UKIP as a political weapon" but on the Twitter account in question, the commentary is dealing not with the "British nationalism" that Rover takes issue with, but the description of the party as "right-wing".
  • "6 hours earlier... "Admittedly I do have a bias on this issue,"" - yes, I have a bias with regard to how Rover should be sanctioned because I have been dealing with their disruptive editing for ten days now. That is a very different thing from admitting some anti-UKIP bias. Rover is again deliberately misrepresenting my words to suit their own agenda
  • As uninvolved editors should be able to see now, Rover has no intention of playing by the rules. When there is a consensus on a particular point, they insist "you have not come to a consensus". They maintain that they have provided "plenty of counter-argument" but have only done so by totally misrepresenting sources and ignoring the fact that their arguments have been consistently examined and rejected by a range of other editors. They continue to claim that the information in the article is "NOT accurate" despite the fact that said information is based squarely on the claims made by academic political scientists in the very best quality reliable sources (moreover, they have been pointed to WP:Verifiability, not truth at least twice now). They have now been offered an RfC on multiple occasions and have ignored the offer, instead continuing to insist that they are right and that editors who disagree with them are politically motivated and should desist from editing altogether. They've had multiple chances to cease their behaviour and have failed to do so. I think that the proposal of a topic ban is a good one and would welcome the involvement of administrators to put a stop to this disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:RoverTheBendInSussex, as I've said on the Talk page in the past, you have raised some appropriate points of nuance that I think warrant coverage in the article text (I've made suggestions where). However, you are not new to Wikipedia. You know how the project works. You can't win every argument. You will achieve more if you accepted when consensus is against you. It's not up to me, but I support User:Black Kite's suggestions for how to avoid the "time-sink". Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In the end, this is quite a simple concept and one answer from the editor

RoverTheBendInSussex, are you going to stop edit-warring against others, and trying to claim others should not be editing, on the UKIP page? If the answer is yes, then we can close this and carry on. If the answer is no (or if you continue to do so after answering "yes"), then a topic-ban on the UKIP page or (more likely) an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE are in order. Which is it to be? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is all rather pathetic. I have provided clear and concise explanations as to why the edit is wrong, and doesn't match UKIP ideology. Nobody has even argued the point I have made. Now because I disagree with an inaccurate and potentially damaging edit. I am threatened with removal/blocking. My choice is thus; Put up with an inaccurate edit which I have clearly explained as being wrong citing examples of it being wrong, and comparisons to other parties showing it is wrong. Or fight my corner and be banned. No proper debate about the subject has been had. More people have made threats to me than I have tried to cause conflict, and nobody has attempted to explain the reasoning for the edit. Utterly pathetic. I encourage people to actually debate this edit on the talk page, or would that result in another barrage of threats to ban me as well? User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:45, 01 October 2016 (GMT)
  • You might be thinking that once you submit an argument against to the arguments of others, somehow you're right and they are wrong. Wikipedia works by agreement, and I think it's safe to say you have had no success at all with getting (almost) anyone to agree with your view on the definition of UKIP's nationalism, and also the sources which you have used to try backing up your views. Moreover, no one owns anything on Wikipedia, and some of your comments on the UKIP talk page, like calling others to "desist from editing this page" seems like you like others who disagree with your political philosophy from editing. And as mentioned above, almost no one agrees with your quoted sources and way of explaining them to qualify your views. Plus, "so people of his ilk" above (did you guys miss that?) isn't helping your case in the least bit. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not "pathetic" to request that an editor stop edit-warring and casting aspersions on others; indeed, the community shouldn't need to ask that you follow site policy. I currently don't see anything from you that says this won't continue. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Problematic behavior of user Le Grand Bleu

The following discussion is closed. 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 been blocked about a dozen of times, including three times this year (once by myself), mainly for personal attacks. What they are doing on Wikipedia is not particularly useless but not very useful either: they find unsourced statements, mark them as unsourced, and after a while, without making any effort, remove them, often with a rude remarks [51]. Today, they got a complaint on a talk page from a user in good standing [52]. They responded like this. I noticed their response and asked them whether they realize that the comment is rude. I was told more or less to mind my own business. May be time has come for this user to have a longer Wikipedia break, a year or may be even longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more concerned about the potential libel going on at Talk:Geely: [53]. clpo13_(talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a serious BLP problem, so I have reverted and hidden it. Moriori (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Regrettably, after reviewing this user's behavior in the time they have been on Wikipedia, I agree and support a one year ban. The user has had two three-month long blocks, and each time they have returned only to behave in the same manner. There is evidence of racial bias [54] [55], disparagement of positions the user disagrees with [56], name-calling [57] [58] [59], disparaging living subjects of articles [60], and at least one accusation that other editors are the President of Kazakhstan [61]. Frankly, I'm not convinced that this user will cease their behavior even after that time. As it stands now though, such a large portion of this user's edits are objectionable that I do not think we have another choice. agtx 23:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support one year ban per above and after looking at the notes in their block log. Le Grand Bleu does not display the temperament customary to participating in a collaborative project. These aren't just small lapses in civility where can be like "could you please be more civil? Thank you". Le Grand Bleu has demonstrated a complete inability to interact with others in a collaborative manner without responding with just downright mean and abrasive comments and bashing those he disagrees with. That is entirely contravention to working with others and building an encyclopedia. I am absolutely convinced that nothing short of a one year site ban will convince this user to engage in the community in a proactive and not combative manner. If not, then the user can always be blocked again if they come back with the same behavior. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block: With those comments above, Should we indef block the user because he's totally incompentent with this user. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support one year block - Moriori has already applied this block, but I'm going to add my two cents nonetheless. After reviewing this user's recent contributions to Talk:Greely and other articles in relation to Greely, and looking through this user's past blocks and history, I agree that the community has exhausted all other options, and that a one year block is the logical next step regarding a sanction to impose in order to stop the problematic behavior and the disruption that has been made. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block - This user has demonstrated no respect for the project, the administrators and the content. I'd go as far to say as the user is WP:NOTHERE. -- Dane2007 ^talk 03:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support 1 year block a one year block is the logical step, as Oshwah has said. I don't think an indef is necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef ban 96.237.18.247 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Community ban for User:Le Grand Bleu

It seems everyone has a different take on this situtation; but most can agree that he needs a community site ban for at least a full year. I'm not even going to go into detail about this; his block log, contributions, and the rest of this section prove anything I ever could. I do have one thing I noticed that most people don't, though: he uses being a "new user" (Yeah, that tag has been up since June 2014 and hasn't learned anything) as an excuse for all of the aforementioned BS. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

About the time you were writing that I was blocking User:Le Grand Bleu -- for one year. Moriori (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That was actually the reason I wrote this. Although I can understand if you misunderstand; I think a site ban is deserved because he has kept up with this shit for around 26 months. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, massive kudos to User:Clpo13 for fixing up the Geely article a bit by adding sources, reverting him, and tagging it. 96.237.20.169 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

e/c Wow! I freely admit I know nothing about the user or their edits, but it seems to me that blocking someone for a year within 3 hours of the OP and the user has not even replied (been able to reply) to the accusations is, well, premature. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I blocked him not because of the OP, but because a subsequent comment from another editor alerted me to something else. When notifying User:Le Grand Bleu that I had blocked him, I said it was for his "BLP transgression at Geely today, an edit serious enough in itself to warrant a block, especially given your block history." He can appeal the block if he wants to. Moriori (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Rekt! 96.237.22.40 (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Lets not dance around the grave here and kick Le Grand Bleu while he's down :-(. As much as this user has probably caused frustration and perhaps anger, we need to be respectful and take Le Grand Bleu's feelings into account. Blocking someone for a year is not a decision that comes lightly, nor is it something should be done without serious care. If I were in Le Grand Bleu's shoes, I'd feel quite saddened, beaten, and defeated for being blocked for a full year. Making comments like this only makes things worse; we don't want to discourage this user from coming back (assuming that a one-year block is the consensus that is reached here) - we should have the attitude that we want him back! But we also want him to take time and learn from this and contribute positively and according to policy :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

CyberBrinda

The following discussion is closed. 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 very likely to need some help here as I have no idea yet what I am doing especially concerning listing "diff's". I will look into this if actually needed.

I had participated in some AFD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewati Chetri and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pankhuri Gidwani and received notices of thanks from CyberBrinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had made some edits, to Rewati Chetri that were maintenance (marking dead links, removing a redundant reference to the same source with the same content, and I also removed the external link to a pageant that I feel was just pageant advertising, since there was no mention of the subject. All these were done with an edit summary and I posted what I had done on the talk page.

The edits were removed so I posted more comments on the talk page and looked around. I placed an external link tag on the article to deal with it later, with an edit summary and the reasoning on the talk page. I sent a message to CyberBrinda about the incremental mobile edits to the page, with no edit summary. I received a notice of thanks from the editor. Looking into it more I found that the editor had made other like edits such as Miss Earth India, and in fact is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with hundreds of such edits. CyberBrinda had been warned by at least one user, and was blocked twice for disruptive editing. I added a message on the talk page concerning the things I found. I may not have done things exactly right (or right at all) but think I have been civil and trying to be informative about the issues.

The external link tag that I placed was removed and at least had an edit summary "(The External links does not violate any copyrights...)" but no discussion, in fact no discussion on anything just the thanks and edit reverts.

I am posting this discussion on the user talk page and that may get some response. I did not look to see if the blocks were related and did not know protocol as to if I should have made inquiries to the blocking admin or here since I have not done this before. I was going to send another message, and was looking at the templates, but the external link tag was removed without discussion so I know that any further discussion to the user would be a waste of my time. I feel some intervention is required as I do not know how to follow the hundreds of rapid fire masked edits (no edit summaries), that includes what looks to be 87 edits on one day on the same article, to see what is going on, but 367 edits to 5 articles (842 total edits to just a few articles), in such a short time by a somewhat new editor, causes me to wonder. Add to this the disregard of policies and guidelines, in light of receiving messages, means to me there is a problem. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• I closed one of the AfDs and at that time I came across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnLivinova that wasn't CU acted on because it was stale. I've blocked quite a few socks in the different sockfarms around these shows and this definitely feels like one of them. I'm not familiar enough yet to identify which one it is, but I'm pinging Cyphoidbomb as he filed the SPI. —SpacemanSpiff 09:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you will either find that, or a very enthusiastic fan, that has no regard for policies and guidelines, and I don't think either an asset to Wikipedia. One problem I have with the hundreds of edits is that I am almost certain they will be found to not have contributed to source or references, since that is almost impossible to find without looking at a primary source. I actually can't see an end result difference between fan base mass article creations and paid advertising article creation. They both end up adding articles that 10 years from now will far more likely than not end up the same as when created.

I think that I am going to step back from being involved in these type articles. They have a large fan-base and I see too many primary, non-sourced, or severely under sourced micro-BLP's being nudged through, as well as editors seeking cleanup being attacked as being biased against pageants. I have successfully "battled" (I feel) in at least 3 areas where I think these "battles" have resulted in vast improvements to Wikipedia. I would use another word, but that is appropriate in the instances I was involved in, and I don't think I am up for this one. I will just have to accept that we might just need articles on everything, especially after running across List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, the single sourced spin-off; List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, and future additional spin-off's this slippery slope is heading us. We will likely have articles on city pageants in the future anyway. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I happen to think that the user is a sockpuppet. The problem is, I don't know who they're a sockpuppet of, because there are apparently numerous rings involved in beauty pageant editing. I thought I was on the right track with AnnLivinova, but the accounts are all stale and the CU declined to look.

• CyberBrinda's account was created 24 June 2016. By 1 July 2016, Miss Supernational was created, apparently as a way to circumvent the salting of Miss Supranational. The salted Supranational article was created several times, and included edits by socks of AnnLivinova and Mrdhimas.
• There are significant competence issues going on here as well, like here where CyberBrinda bizarrely used a link to a directory entry for Elle MacPherson in an article on someone who is not Elle MacPherson. When I brought it up, the user blanked the page with no response.
• In these edits the user added a birthdate for a living person, supported by a blog. When I notified the user about our blog and BLP concerns, they were apparently ignored, and 20 hours later, CyberBrinda used a poorly-constructed baby name website to assert a claim that Rashi Yadav practices Hinduism. What? Based on her name? When I brought this issue up, CyberBrinda removed it with no comment. She then removed my notice that we do not use blogs, and that BLPs must be impeccably sourced.
• The user also kept irritatingly refactoring another user's comment, apparently removing the criticism, while retaining the greeting. I blocked them for this after they did it repeatedly. The criticism was in response to straight-up vandalism committed by CyberBrinda.
• There were also a spate of AfD template removals by CyberBrinda.[62][63]
• The user was admonished by Little Will for copy/pasting references into other articles without verifying that the links worked. Brinda had added deadlinks and months-old accessdates, which heavily implied that they were not being checked. Sloppy.
• And once again in this edit, Brinda adds a specific birthdate for Priyadarshini Chatterjee using this source, which doesn't seem to say anything other than that the subject was 19 at the time the article was written. It seems to me that CyberBrinda either doesn't understand our BLP concerns, or they simply don't care. Neither scenario is acceptable.
• There are other indicators of oddities. Here, where Brinda admonished a user not to be a "serial deletionist". Where did they get that phrasing from? It took them two tries. I'd argue that only cynical Wikipedians, sockmasters, and meatpuppets being coached by sockmasters would use that sort of phrasing.

Anyhow, there are numerous problems surrounding this user. The fact that they decided early on that they weren't going to respond to corrections makes it difficult to deal with them constructively. The increasing victim's mentality is counterproductive as well: "I don't need any negativities in my life." "Why are they doing this to me!?" "Because that is what you are capable of....blackmail" Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comments; We can only extend being nice to the newby so far or giving generous allowances for gross ignorance. User JamesBWatson added back the external link tag with the summary "Restoring removed tag. It has nothing to do with copyright" and it was taken out again with the same summary "The external links does not violate any of the Wikipedia's policies.". Apparently she also blanked out a warning he placed on her talk page. I undid her removal of the tag. I am now requesting an indefinite block because even "if" this editor is not a sock there can be no doubt the evidence is clear this single purpose account is not here to build an encyclopedia. I also think CU should have taken a look because such disregard can only mean an editor does not worry about being blocked or banned. He or she will just start with another account or just use another one already in existence. I do hope someone can look into this. An editor that does not respect the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, nor editors and admins, to the point of blatantly ignoring them, and just as blatantly continuing his or her own agenda, is a detriment to this encyclopedia. I suppose I will have to remain in this as these pageant articles and pageant related BLP's are horrendous examples of things Wikipedia should not be or have included. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I've given a final warning. This has gone on long enough, any further disruption of any kind should result in an indefinite block. —SpacemanSpiff 03:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: CyberBrinda's behavior is absurd. In this edit they restore a flag to an infobox despite this clearly-explained edit I made shortly before. I don't know how it's possible to assume good faith when they are educated at every step and pointed to relevant guidelines, but they keep blanking discussions and continuing the disruptions. Here's yet another removal of talk page comments with no response. Will they remove maintenance templates again? Of course! They've done it numerous times before with impunity. Anyone who is incapable of adhering to established guidelines, whether it's through incompetence of just plain pissiness, should take a time out until they are ready to discuss and contribute constructively. The last thing we need is another prolific editor who has no regard for proper sourcing, discussion, guidelines, policies, community, and so forth. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. The last unexplained revert was after my final warning and the user shows no interest in treating this as a collaborative encyclopaedia. —SpacemanSpiff 04:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 User:Powell to the People

The following discussion is closed. 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 nominated this user's user page for deletion after User:Narutolovehinata5 nominated their eponymous article Powell to the People for speedy deletion. In response, User:Powell to the People made this legal threat on my talk page diff 1 as well as this statement diff 2 on their own talk page. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I deleted the article, but I'm not as convinced that WP:NLT applies since it doesn't seem to be a threat to sue. Will leave that for other admins to decide. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The threat seems to be criminal prosecution (Interpol was referenced). Now that's downright farcical, but it appears to be an attempt to chill, which is what NLT is there to prevent. A block is appropriate, if not for NLT, for NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef, and agreeing with John from Idegon. It's close enough to a legal threat, and with the same purpose, to warrant a block. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree it meets the criteria for obviously attempting to chill discussion and force their will using the legal system as a hammer. Probably some CIR going on as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

rollback of User:I2padams 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.

---

This user was emergency blocked after removing multiple links (more than 1200 when I checked, but I don't know what the final number was). Is there some way to efficiently undo all of these edits? Meters (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I already took care of it with Writ Keeper's "rollback all" script. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

You and I together:) Apparently its concept of "all" doesn't really mean "all all". DMacks (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It leaks? Are you there, Writ Keeper? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

User needs talkpage access removal.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: has done the deed. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

For the record, Bish et al., the rollback script will only roll back all the edits that you see on the current page; if you're only looking at the user's 50 most recent edits, it'll only try to roll back those 50 edits. Since you can look at up to 500 edits at a time (and can thus mass-rollback up to 500 edits at a time) it's not usually that onerous a cap. 2600:100A:B129:A660:C1AC:226:1743:FA8 (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oohh. You know, I recognise that, but I'd forgotten. I'll try to imprint it on memory. Do you think it'll work if I'm looking at 5000 edits? (Because I can. Just go to "500 edits", then add another nought in the URL. It takes a while to load.) Or will that crash it? Bishonen | talk 21:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

It should *work* on any amount, as long as each entry populates with a "rollback" link (thats what the script cribs off of to actually do the rollback). I can't say exactly how *quickly* it'll work, though, and it's possible that you might hit some automated throttling by Mediawiki, which would stop things partway through. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It good to see the little Writ! Don't run away again! [Sticks the little Writ Keeper in her pocket.] bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

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

Croatoan21 – disruptive editing

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

---

The user (Croatoan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has repeatedly edited in an unconstructive manner by not updating timestamps when updating stats for footballers. As can be seen on their talk page, the user has been told many, many times what they need to change and they haven't reacted in any shape or form.

I initially brought up the user's disruptive editing on 26 September at the "Administrator intervention against vandalism" page here but was told it would be better to come to AN/I. Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This kind of vandalism is the worst, because it's the hardest to spot or verify -- Changes to numbers that are already unsourced by users that could, plausibly, be correcting numbers that were already vandalized. Whatever the case, it seems you aren't the only person who's noticed their unsourced changes; their talk page is full of similar notices. Eik Corell (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for disruptive editing, for the reasons outlined here. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 is trying to take over my account

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

---

I just received an email from wiki@wikimedia.org saying that IP 202.69.12.62 has requested that the password to my account be reset, probably hoping they'd be able to intercept the email somehow. The IP, which geolocates to Islamabad, Pakistan, is currently CU-blocked by Materialscientist, but with no tag identifying the master, so I can only guess who it is (IMHO probably Najaf ali bhayo, but it might also be LanguageXpert), and since the person behind it probably is trying to do the same with other accounts too, I thought I'd let you know... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

People do this all the time; not so much because they think they can intercept the email, but because they're morons. Used to happen to me once or twice a month. It can be safely ignored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This happens with socks I block, as long as your email password is strong and you haven't communicated with these socks via email, you should be good. —SpacemanSpiff 12:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

If it's that common it's odd that noone has tried it with my account before, people usually just call me nasty things. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It happens to me once in a while, every few months, or so. Last time was on July. You can safely ignore it, I did some of the times. Some other times I tried to play safer: I logged in (to check I still can); take a look at my contributions (to check no one use my account); change password (to invalidate the temporary one, I hope). The procedure is prettu much standard over the net, I presume; yet I think Wikimedia could do better. Possibly on our first logging after this there could be a few questions or suggestions. Like logging if the request was a fake one (they could catch some IPs making lots of attempts), suggest to change contributions and change password anyway :-), or simply provide a link to invalidate any temp password. I don't know... I know little about security, but as a user the message seems poor, it feels like "someone tried to hack your account and we do not care much". - Nabla (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be safe, please make sure you use a unique password on Wikipedia. Don't use the same password you use elsewhere, and consider using a password manager. There have been a lot of data breaches recently and it's quite possible one or more of your passwords has been compromised. Have I Been Pwned? is a good site for checking if your email address has been part of a data breach. None of this contradicts what others have said; this particular password reset is all but certainly nothing to worry about, I'm just giving general advice. --Yamla (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• What Floq said. If I think there may be a particular user involved, I privately forward to the blocking CU, or if not any, to any CU so they can take a peek if they so choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Editor rapidly making pov changes to Bulgarian related articles without 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.

---

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

Despite my earlier warnings, Anngelo (talk · contribs) is rapidly making changes to a series of articles. Not only are these major changes (the editor seems to be anti-Turkic), including changes of sourced text, he's changing spellings, breaking templates, etc. I think there's a WP:CIR problem here as well as the pov issue. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for a short time (12 hours) to get their attention, and a warning given about future editing. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think you caught him just at the end of his editing cycle, given yesterday's edits, but he'll see the block notice. I've also posted to him about changing quotations (which he's done to match his pov). Doug Weller talk 11:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • He's back @Black Kite:. Both User:Crovata and User:David.moreno72 have reverted him today and User:Chewings72 has warned him to no effect. Doug Weller talk 12:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Anngelo (talk · contribs) has now been blocked 48 hours for vandalism by User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Call for topic ban or indefinite block for racial insult

I've already noted that this editor is anti-Turk. Now I find that he's changed "Turk or Turks most often refers to" to "Turk or Turks most often refers to taking up the asshole" [64]. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor is not only anti-Turk, but anti-logic. Did not do one constructive edit. There is material for indefinite block, the community could wait the expiration time of the current block, but if such disruptive edits continue then there's no good from waiting, it's a waste of time and energy.--Crovata (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs a little explaining. That could never be called a constructive edit. WP is not a blog, it is an encyclopedia. Apparently they do not see the difference, and simply need to be educated. If they are unable to constructively edit anything a block is needed but if they are only unglued in one topic area, that calls for a topic block only. I see our job though, not as one of weeding out bad editors, but making everyone into a good editor. Apteva (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an openly racist editor - we should have no tolerance for such editors, not try to talk them out of being racist. Doug Weller talk 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:!HERE Meters (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What does it for me is that Anngelo has made no effort to communicate with other editors in any fashion. No matter what his motives, that lack of communication plus his behavior should equal an indefinite block. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy. Obvious nationalist is obvious. That plus the racism and vandalism is indefinite block material. Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I feel pretty confident that it's safe to interpret the Arbcom decisions regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans in such a way that we could enforce a discretionary sanctions topic ban on Anngelo from any page relating to Bulgaria or the Turkish peoples, broadly construed. However, his contributions lead me to believe that if he is topic banned, he'd either immediately violate said ban (which I'd respond to with an indefinite block), try to sockpuppet around it (if he is not already a sock of some other blocked crank), or never log back in. In the first two cases, the only practical difference between that and indeffing him now would be a little extra WP:ROPE. In the last case... It's really kinda hair-splitting since he wouldn't be editing anyway. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Though, since I've just had to notify him of those sanctions, that does mean that I can't just throw the topic ban at him just yet... This'll still work as a safety net if we don't arrive at a community topic ban (or indef block) here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and/or indef block - Indefinite blocks are not necessarily permanent. If he wants to start talking and agrees to a voluntary topic ban from all pages concerning Bulgaria or Turkish peoples, then we can give him more WP:ROPE. Were it not for Apteva's arguments (which I agree with the broader principle of, though not this particular application), I'd've called a WP:SNOW consensus and indeffed Anngelo already. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban (voluntary is fine), oppose indef, as they are synonymous, as said editor has as I see it only edited that area, and we are losing editors at an alarming rate, and need to be more helpful at turning bad editors into good ones. We used to have 5,000 active editors and are down to 3,000 instead of the 10,000 we need. Please note on user talk page "Any edit on any Bulgaria or Turkish peoples page other than the talk page will bring an immediate and undiscussed indef block." Apteva (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef block and/or topic ban It's clear that he will probably not be a constructive contributor. Indef might be needed here, but we can take a chance on it, if he keeps editing disruptively, he'll get blocked anyway. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Clear cut case of not being here to build an encyclopedia --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support indef - user has shown intent to continue racist POV campaign and refusal to communicate after a block. Let them own up to it in an unblock request, or let them gtfo. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block - User is WP:NOTHERE and a topic ban in this case is simply too little. -- Dane2007 ^talk 21:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Persistent addition of unsourced content

GTVM92 (talk · contribs), who has been banned for "Persistent addition of unsourced content" three times before, despite numerous warnings is still keen to do so in his recent edits. Please consider 1, 2 and 3 as examples for recent activity. Pahlevun (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're supposed to notify the editor. I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

About this, I can said if you are living in Iran, you should know that which party won that election and their leader was who. I don't add references about election of a party's leader in 1990's to the page! I only edit inbox like what I see in results section of English and Persian articles. But about it, I add the leaders that you said in the list's main article that they were the list's leaders in that election. Please see your edits in the main articles! This change has made after a high ranking of party (Shajoni) said the news. I add the reference when I changed the name and also to the main chapters of article. As you see: "In 2016, the association removed "Combatant" from it's name." GTVM92 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking a content dispute. Here, the user clearly manipulates the numbers. In this version, the results are given from three different sources. (Nohlen et al, IPU, Abrahamian) None of them cites Executives of Construction Party. He did add them with 47 seats and changed sourced material (Nohlen et al). Pahlevun (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@GTVM92: In this edit, you added Morteza Motahari as General-Secretary of Combatant Clergy Association (1977–1979) while he never held the office, Fazlollah Mahallati was the General-Secretary between 1977 and 1981 (ISNA). What do you have to say? Pahlevun (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Cut-and-paste moves and other disruption

A Malaysian IP editor has been disruptive for a long time about film titles. At first, the IP editor engaged in repeated copy-paste moves, mostly to The Howling: New Moon Rising (for example, [65], [66]). After I reverted those copy-paste moves four times, the editor finally started an requested move. It failed. Undeterred, the IP editor went through a bunch of articles and changed the name of the film in that article ([67]) and in a bunch of other articles ([68], [69], among others). Alright, somewhat disruptive, but not worth going to ANI. The truly disruptive behavior comes in the form of changing working links to redlinks: [70], [71], [72], [73]. After I fixed these links, the IP editor edit warred to change them back to broken redlinks: [74], [75]. Plus, the IP editor still seems to be engaging in cut-and-paste moves, as of a few days ago: [76] and [77]; [78] and [79]. There are probably more that I'm missing.

I'm not exactly sure to stop this editor from edit warring to reinstate broken links and making cut-and-paste moves, but these are the IP addresses I've encountered so far:

• 1.32.75.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 2
• 110.159.78.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 19
• 115.133.104.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 20
• 60.52.1.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 22
• 115.133.105.215 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 23
• 115.133.105.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 25
• 115.133.104.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.134.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 26
• 60.50.202.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 27
• 115.133.111.192 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - September 28

This editor seems to be the most active, and perhaps the only active, editor on 115.133.0.0/16 and 60.50.0.0/16, but there are other ranges that the IP editor is also active on. I'm not really sure what to suggest. I can check the range contribs tool for cut-and-paste moves every few days, but that's really tedious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like an edit filter might be needed Pinging @Samtar: and @Musikanimal: who are our resident edit filter experts --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I too have been dealing with this IP at articles related to Dakota's Summer, the Mostly Ghostly films, and the Feast (2005 film) sequels (e.g. [80] – so add 1.32.74.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ). It would be really great if their disruption could be curtailed once and for all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope I'm not making a huge deal out of minor things, but, last year, the IP editor did a cut-and-paste move of Road House 2: Last Call to Road House 2. When fixing this yesterday, I cleaned up a few other things, such as File:Roadhouse2.jpg (diff), which the IP editor had changed to point to what is now a redirect. Apparently, the IP editor realized today I had changed the file and reverted me (diff). I'm not so precious that I run to ANI when reverted, but isn't it important for a non-free file to point to the correct location? I don't think MusikAnimal got properly pinged before. I'm skeptical that an edit filter could be written that would catch this sort of stuff (cut-and-paste moves, disruptively changing links), but, then again, I'm not really that skilled with regexps. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime

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

---

In this post HicManebimusOptime (talk · contribs) has attempted to "out" K.e.coffman‎ (talk · contribs) by linking them with what they claim is a related Reddit account. This has been done as part of a dispute, and is clearly harassment. Could an uninvolved admin please follow up on this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I should have reported this myself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from his first edit that HicManebimusOptime registered his account to carry out a grudge, not build an encyclopedia, so he's been blocked indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Peacemaker, ignoring this person as you were doing was also a valid response. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:AllSportsfan16

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

---

AllSportsfan16 (talk · contribs)

• I do not think this user knows how the consensus process works, despite my best attempt at explain WP:BRD the user keeps insisting that they are right. I did my best to explain that a consensus takes time and that editors need a chance to weigh in here: Talk:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016.

• Warnings given:

• 1. [81]
• 2. [82]

In addition to the warnings this editor has also broken WP:3RR at Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This user undid my good faith edit, using WP: BRD. However it clearly states that WP:BRD is not a reason to undo good faith edits. He should have left my edit alone in the first place, but he and several other did not. I tried to talk about it, but no one see to want to respond to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AllSportsfan16 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass blanking without consensus is not in good faith when editors tell you to gain a consensus first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting to many times, but my edit shouldn't have been reverted in the first place.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You can always self revert and wait for other editors to weigh in on the issue, not everyone is present here on a weekend plus you should at least give a 24 hour waiting period. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How is it mass blanking I removed a small part of the article because it violated the rules. I encourage an administrator to look at this article because it contains unsourced material such as a possible electoral vote count. It also violates WP:SPECULATION, WP:NOTNEWS AllSportsfan16 (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a board regarding user conduct, even if you end up being right in the end it needs to be discussed like everything else. This wasn't a "small part" this was over 100KB worth of content. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well thus far Sports has not self reverted, I welcome uninvolved editors or an admin to weigh in here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any reason to remove the maps. AllSportsfan16 seems to be under the impression that just because older articles of the same type don't use maps, new articles shouldn't either. To me, the maps are an improvement and it seems that others feel the same way. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That is not my main argument. My main argument is that showing a map with possible electoral votes is uncited material that cannot be verified. It is content that cannot be seen anywhere else except for a wikipedia. I understand that certain people want to see it, but it's a clear violation of basic wikipedia rules. No electoral votes have been cast, so the numbers that are being displayed are not factual.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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-hopping troll engaged in persistent page-blanking on Madeline and other articles.

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

---

Title says all: can someone look into doing a temporary rangeblock on this vandal? He appears to be living off the 166.137.x.x range as of now. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Allegations by User:Castncoot

User:Castncoot has accused me and User:JFG (who is not an admin but does have some admin privileges) of abusing our authorities. diff

These claims are completely bogus. Neither of us has even sought to exercise any such authority. They are part of an ongoing campaign of low-level disruption, intimidation and personal attacks designed to hinder forming a consensus on whether or not to move the New York State article away from the base name New York. Castncoot is strongly opposed to the move proposal.

I have tried to discuss on Castncoot's user talk page on several occasions, and the response has been baseless allegations of disruption against myself. Other users have raised objections to Castncoot's behaviour, but not always on the user talk page, and so these comments are now deeply buried in the discussion. As I write Castncoot has not responded to my asking for a withdrawal of these latest and strongest allegations, but has not made any other edits either, and is possibly on a short Wikibreak.

They are now again editing and have responded on the project talk page but not on their user talk page: Asking me to withdraw such content amounts to a cover-up and subterfuge on its own, which I will not engage in. [83] I have requested they respond here. [84] [85] Andrewa (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But I think the time has come to escalate this to ANI. Other users have adopted similar tactics in the New York discussion, possibly following Castncoot's poor example, but have not gone so far as this. Hopefully an appropriate censure will set some boundaries and cool their passion a great deal. Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said previously, although in reference to a different case, if Castncoot has evidence of corruption and conspiracy they better be able to put up diffs, else shut up. The histrionics and hyperbole are not conducive to collegiate discussion. Blackmane (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That previous incident doesn't IMO influence whether or not the current one is acceptable, but it might have a bearing on what the appropriate response is, if the pattern is similar. Can you be specific? Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)\

It's a personal attack, unless they can back up the allegations with evidence. At the very least a stern warning is called for. Kleuske (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As the response now alleging cover-up and subterfuge (diff above) shows, it's part of a pattern on New York RM related talk pages. I have not named the other editors now falling into this pattern, and don't want to clog ANI with every incident. My hope in raising this is to improve the tone of the discussion there, or at least put a brake on further escalation. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense, Andrewa. Rather than whining on this page that I've pointed out issues with a specific action you took on another page, if you're convinced that you did nothing wrong, then what you should have done (and still can do) is to simply write one or two sentences explaining your own statements on that specific page where I pointed out the action-specific comments. And then move on. Let the readers come to their own conclusions. If you truly did nothing deliberately wrong, your explanation should speak for itself. I've done nothing wrong here, I never meant any personal attack, and this is not a personal attack. But I won't restrain my freedom of expression if I sincerely believe that an egregious action was committed. And stop the holier-than-thou nonsense when the side supporting the move was behaving no differently from the side opposing the move. Castncoot (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

And if you do explain yourself in good faith on that page, I in turn will accept it in good faith and not contest it on that page. Castncoot (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not nonsense, user:Castncoot. You have made serious and baseless allegations, which you still refuse to either justify or withdraw. I have better things to do than play these games.

This is not about sides, although I do admit that I think that your side or team as you have called it elsewhere has benefited from the way your breaches of behavioural guidelines and policy have obscured the issues. This is just about one of those breaches.

I think I have been more than patient. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I stand by my direct, action-targeted statements and will not be forced to remove these statements. Are you really serious? That would be unethical on all levels. On the other hand, it's your turn to justify your own statements on the talk page of WP:HLJC. To blame a whole move decision (which occurred before this incident, by the way) somehow upon my alleged "breaches of behavioural guidelines and policy" is far-fetched and takes away from your credibility. We had an administrative moderator throughout who did a very good job, in fact - are you denying this? I've already specifically explained what I've written on the talk page – there's nothing to "justify" in that I've pointed out your own statements verbatim. Are you also denying your own statements? You, on the other hand, have not explained your conduct vis-à-vis those statements on that talk page. Do I believe that you should remain an admin, based upon that conduct? At the bottom of my heart, no. But I don't make those decisions, nor do I have any interest in seeing your adminship removed. I have tried to stay above the fray at all times. However, if I see something I believe is wrong, I will indeed point it out without hesitation, as that is also a part of staying above the fray. Castncoot (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not blaming you for the failure of the latest RM. There were many factors, and two of the panel of three very capable editors were unable to call a consensus.

I don't think you intimidated them, but you may well have intimidated others. So yes, I do think that there is a horrible possibility that it could have gone the other way if you and others had adhered to behavioural guidelines and policies, but we will never know and that is water under the bridge.

My goal is now to remove the threat of such breaches from the ongoing discussion, to whatever extent is possible. Isn't that reasonable? Andrewa (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Truth be told, I felt the same way about those supporting the move - in one particular instance coming to my head immediately, one editor (another admin apparently and shockingly, no less) directly misquoting 20-odd move-opposing editors' statements in a mocking way. Are you also suggesting that the administrative moderator on board the entire time wasn't doing their job properly? By the way, why don't you just explain your statements on the WP:HLJC talk page? I'm sure other editors would have had the same thoughts as I. Your explanation should speak for itself if you made those statements with purely good intentions, and if that is the case, then I can them acknowledge them affirmatively on that page. Castncoot (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not about the other admin who paraphrased your !vote as the sky is falling (I think that's the incident you mean) or even about my own behaviour. It's about yours. If you wish to criticise our behaviour, the next step is to raise it on our user talk pages.

But I fear we are both wearing our welcome thin. I know I asked you to reply here, but I'm as tired of this as others are of reading it. So I may well leave it to others to reply to any further posts... this page is after all for input from other admins rather than discussion between ourselves (that should have happened on our user talk pages).

I will of course respond to any questions from others. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to @Kleuske: for your comment. Indeed that is entirely the thrust of my comment. I see again that Castncoot has repeated their allegation of misbehaviour against Andrewa without evidence.@Castncoot:, if you're alleging anything against another editor, administrator or otherwise, pointing at a talk page thread and saying "look there" tells those of us who have commented nothing. Furthermore, you have accused Andrewa of misconduct and ulterior motives indicating he has not made those statements with purely good intentions, again without evidence. I'm not sure about others but I view this behaviour quite dimly and would expect a warning that further such accusations without evidence will attract a block. Blackmane (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

While it is mild in comparison to the allegations that brought me to ANI, I think I should call attention to this edit and subsequent (perhaps ongoing) discussion at User talk:Castncoot#Trojan horses. As I say there, I regard this as another personal attack.

But I'd welcome other opinions on this. In particular, if it is to be regarded as one, then it's only fair to User:Castncoot to make this clear, in view of the threat of a block. It's all about setting some boundaries. TIA Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Vote summary in RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft

Would an uninvolved admin please have a look over the recent addition of a "vote summary" to the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gamergate draft by IP editor 2603:3024:200:300:C67:8989:F806:A1A2, and determine if it should stay? Diffs:1,2. I have discussed reasons for excluding it on the Talk page (that vote counting is disruptive per WP:NOT#DEM, WP:NOTAVOTE), but other editors are in favour of inclusion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's useless, but it's not off-topic and there isn't any other reason to remove it per WP:TPO. Best to just leave it, the closing admin will just ignore it anyway. — Strongjam (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do suggest that it is off-topic, in that it is not participating in the RfC. Given the IP editor's lack of other contributions, there would be a strong case for a WP:DUCK->WP:BANREVERT, but I do not like WP:DUCK as a reason for anything other than a WP:SPI, so do not make such a case. I do, however, think that the later addition of !voting editors' registration dates & edit counts to the table is pretty poor form.[86] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 16:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised the page isn't under ECP.Doug Weller talk 06:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer a kind of "reverse ECP", where topics and pages relating to the "Gamergate" playground fight are edited only by the SPAs and warriors obsessed with them, but locked away and invisible to the rest of us. A kind of "walled sandbox" if you like, with the purpose of the walls being to keep the participants inside, and protect everyone else from the insanity. And I'm only partly kidding... -- Begoon 03:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That, sir, is a brilliant idea! Guy (Help!) 10:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Any closing admin will ignore it. The draft clearly has no consensus and that is evident without counting. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Googly Drive, 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.

---

WP:NOTHERE states Wikipedians are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e., a neutral, reliable public reference work on notable topics. Users whose behavior suggests they are here for some other purpose risk being blocked or banned. and I have seen many admins block editors who they think are not here to build an encyclopedia.

User:Googly Drive's edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. They came to surface during a very hotly contested AFD and their very first edit was to canvass like-minded editors to vote in an AFD. Their second edit was on LanguageXpert SPI displaying the knowledge about SPIs and how they knew the behavior of previous socks of LX. Their third edit was on TP of Human3015 telling him that LX was impersonating his style which shows that they are very much familiar with Human3015's editing style. All of their edits show that they are number 1 not a new user and number 2 came with an agenda to disrupt that AFD process. I am requesting a block for this user as it seems they are not here to make any productive contributions but rather their existence on Wikipedia will create more disruption than productive contribution. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sheriff himself is not here to build an encyclopaedia. He wants the whole world to agree with his original research. If Sheriff will say "The Earth is flat", then he wants others to say "yes". Googly Drive (talk) 04:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Tu quoque is not a valid defense. Kleuske (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• FYI to all ye who wonder: User:Googly Drive was renamed to Harpoon Trigger (talk · contribs). -- The Voidwalker ^Whispers 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• • • @Bbb23:... you and Mike V doing a double act?! ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

The original master is stale because last proper run on it was done in March, I could have reported him under that but honestly there was no evidence except the user knew too much and was not new and the habit of renaming users which he just gave away an hour ago. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone who makes pro-India edits is a sock. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Attempted doxing by User:HicManebimusOptime

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

---

In this post HicManebimusOptime (talk · contribs) has attempted to "out" K.e.coffman‎ (talk · contribs) by linking them with what they claim is a related Reddit account. This has been done as part of a dispute, and is clearly harassment. Could an uninvolved admin please follow up on this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I should have reported this myself. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from his first edit that HicManebimusOptime registered his account to carry out a grudge, not build an encyclopedia, so he's been blocked indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on this. Peacemaker, ignoring this person as you were doing was also a valid response. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Sk8erPrince attacking IP editor

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

---

User:Sk8erPrince had been generating a lot of aggravation recently concerning the AFD process. Aside from the listing of 40(!) articles in the space of 2 days, the attitude shown in those afd's and the resulting fallout ensured he got some guidance from User:Nihonjoe [87] regarding problems like WP:AGF and disruption. Ok, everyone deserves a second chance, we can move on from that and the user had shown signs of accepting the issues raised.

However they have been repeatedly harassing an IP editor 86.17.222.157. Frankly I think their attitude to this user has been downright offensive. This post was way over the top, attacking them for choosing not to use a registered account and devaluing their contributions purely based on that choice. Which was followed by this where to the ip's response he tells the Ip to stop acting like an equal and that he has no right to criticise him, and that he is a nobody. Then edit summaries like this. Finally he removed the ip's comments from another user's talk page and left another prejudiced edit summary[88]. He has received a number of warnings over this but as he has continued to ignore the advice and warnings given to him so I don't think it's a stretch to believe he hasn't taken them onboard.

Personally I think IP editors who actively edit should register, but it by no means devalues their contributions if they don't and personal attacks of this nature are certainly not going to encourage people to do so. IP editors often make valuable contributions. Sure some do not, but there are plenty of registered users who don't either. There shouldn't be a bias over who edits and IP's shouldn't be subject to personal attacks in the same way registered users shouldn't. They've already declared a desire to ban ip's from contributing at all [89] which is a slap in the face to the entire mission of Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. So it's really hard to see that they've listened to AGF at all when they are making these attacks. SephyTheThird (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, blatant personal attacks. A block might be needed. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest immediate block at the net offence. Zero^talk 12:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As the editor at the IP address in question I would add that, in reply to a final warning for civility, User:Sk8erPrince made an attack on User:Underbar dk, who had been trying to help him. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already received three warnings regarding the IP users - I understand the message now. Regarding what is allowed and what isn't, that is. Three admins have already intervened in this situation; I'd be foolish to not understand how regulations regarding IP users work by now. However, regarding DK, I feel offended by what he has said. My response to the admin is my personal opinion of DK. I think I'm allowed to have an opinion of him, and I do not think he was being helpful in the least. You may disagree with my opinion, but calling it a "personal attack"? That's taking it too far. I admit that I have been making personal attacks to an IP user, and I regret having done so. Admins have warned me about it, and I did express how I wouldn't dare commit such an act again. However, this very same IP user has been monitoring my recent activity, just like an admin would, and I find that to be very discomfortable. Said IP user even reverted one of my edits on what constitutes as a proper process during the closing of an AFD discussion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was very definitely a personal attack on User:Underbar dk, and your claim that it is not shows that you do not understand the message. And no, it was not "said IP user" who reverted you. And the only reason I looked at your contributions was to see if there was any previous interaction between us that might have triggered your offensive diatribe on my talk page, but I found none.86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely disagree. That does not, in any way, consitute as a personal attack. I was merely expressing my discontent with DK. If that is what you consider a "personal attack", then what DK said to me was no different. How could you say that I do not understand the message? I have absolutely no intention of making any more personal attacks. I merely wish to nominate articles for deletion and go through the AFD process in peace. Also, I have a very hard time memorizing numbers that are in an IP user, so it's difficult to identify different IP users. If you say it wasn't you, then it isn't you. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, the user in question clearly doesn't understand what's wrong with his personal attacks against Underbar dk. WP:ROPE might apply here, we don't need to block just yet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

As I have been mentioned by name several times, I will say a few words. My initial hostility at the user in question was because of my suspicion that a new user who calls himself "specializing in deletions" and does 40 drive-by deletions may not be here to build an encyclopedia, especially when the noms were ill-formed and ill-informed. I have since suggested the user seek mentorship, but the user reacted with hostility.(Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Mentoring.3F) Since the user has clearly developed a dislike for me and what I say, I do not feel that it is contributive for me to add any more to the discussion, and I will not be replying to this thread further. Thanks. _dk (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that a lot of the articles I've nominated for deletion fail both WP:GNG and WP:ENT. DK also doesn't seem to understand a lot of things he pointed out are either untrue (there's nothing "combative" about removing a notice by a troll) or things that I already understand. I don't like the way he keeps pushing methods that I am not going to take, nor his word choice. Also, regardless of how he explained his actions, he still admitted that he was "hostile". So there - my opinion of this user is formed based on his action choices. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It isnt just you, almost everything I replied to this user with was met with a snappy response (See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Seiyuu AfDs). What concerns me is his WP:BATTLEGROUND attitunde towardsw other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already been warned about that by an admin. Is there any need to bring it up again? I thought the main topic here is about attacks to IP users; I've pledged to never do it again.

Im talking about your behavior, not about the AfDs. You have been snappy to editors, and have went off against IPs, maybe mentoring as suggested by Narutolovehina could be a good idea. You have to understand that there is no race to things, and wikipedia is about working together. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed him just now on a friend of mines Page Looked at his edits ... very rude not nice BLOCK HIM Jena (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think he should be given one more chance. He has stated multiple times now that he understands what personal attacks are, understands how not to be combative with other editors, and so on. So we should now let him prove it. If he can't show that he's learned from his mistakes, then I have no problem blocking him for it. He needs to understand he is in a precarious position here. People are tired of trying to work with him due to his combative attitude. The complaints about his AfD noms centered most around being combative with others during them and the volume at which he was nominating. Many of his noms were valid, and that's good, but he needs to stop being combative. If he can do that, then we have gained an editor willing to work the harsh realities of AfD. One last chance is what I suggest. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, I just hope the sharp attitude is put into check. Could you also please inform him on how to properly close/withdraw an AfD discussion as well? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats User:TruthandJustice

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

---

The editor TruthandJustice is making legal threats here. Their editing history shows a number of WP:NPOV contributions and a confrontational attitude. A discussion was initiated where the editor urges others to contact the wife of one of the protagonists by email. The context of this is an on-going conflict regarding the band The Jayhawks and former member Mark Olson (musician) who left in 2012. Their assertions cannot be included without reliable sources as this is in all likelihood related to the legal ownership of the name. Karst (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The comments to contact someone's wife off-wiki and posting the email alone is concerning enough. The legal threats later would justify to me a block under WP:NLT until they retract such threats. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Considering the behaviour so far and the user name itself, I am not optimistic. Hence this filing. Karst (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Katie^talk 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Hillary Clinton's wiki page has been hacked

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

---

What appears to be a Trump supporter has hacked into Hillary Clinton's webpage and made it redirect to Porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.71.164.237 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's already been fixed. Due to web caching issues, the fix may not be visible to everyone immediately, if they had visited the bad version of the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Unidentified editor making unsourced changes

I am not well versed enough in the U.S. census to know if this unnamed editor is a vandal or is actually contributing something to the encyclopedia. I hope somebody can check out these changes. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of those edits are being reverted. It would help if the IP provided some sources for the changes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock of 67.44.208.0/22

Several IPs in this address group have been vandalizing a number of articles about Western films from the 1940s to 1960s for at least the past couple of weeks: The Yellow Tomahawk, Fort Yuma (film), The Nebraskan, The Battle at Apache Pass, Colorado (film), California Conquest, and The Black Dakotas, to name some of them. The common vandalism theme across these articles is the insertion of today's actors/actresses in the cast credits and prose of these articles, a number of those names I recognize from Disney Channel and Nickelodeon programs (Jenna Ortega, Rowan Blanchard, Isabela Moner, etc.). Obviously, these actors/actresses weren't around when these films were released.

I normally do not watch these above articles, but what got my attention is these IPs have also been vandalizing a more modern movie, Summer Forever (film), and inserting the same actors/actresses, who are not in that film. Looking through the contributions of the IPs linked me to their vandalism in the above Western films. The vandalism in the Summer Forever article dates back to late August.

Some of these articles are presently semiprotected, but this is looking like a problem that isn't gonna stop anytime soon. I specify 67.44.208.0/22 as the range, since the IP addresses have been starting with either 67.44.209.*, 67.44.210.* or 67.44.211.*. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The netblock there is 67.44.0.0/14, assigned to Hughes Network Systems. Obviously, a /14 is too large to block, and you are asking for a /22 range. Just be warned, the vandal may be able to hop outside your /22 range. You may wish to ping a checkuser to see if there'd be significant collateral damage. /22 looks to be the right size to capture the 209, 210, and 211 addresses. --Yamla (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

May need help finding checkusers, but using a tool I found at WP:COLLATERAL, I haven't seen any new edits from anyone in 67.44.208.0/22, since the early hours of October 2, which is almost 48 hours. So probably not necessary right now for a rangeblock, unless they start up again and do more damage to the above articles or other related ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic behavior at Portal:Current events

The IP editor in question:

• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C052:8350:C710:B155 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:4C61:46F5:F7F2:F9EF (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.67.17 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:C9D8:9FC2:D559:4ABC (talk · contribs)
• 98.167.194.3 (talk · contribs)
• 70.209.114.41 (talk · contribs)
• 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E98E:504E:508B:6A89 (talk · contribs)

And potentially more. Judging by their editing patterns and Geolocate results, I believe they are one and the same person. While it's not exactly out of the ordinary to edit from multiple locations or from different dynamic IP addresses, it is rather alarming that their behavioral problems persist in spite of that.

The editor's field of interest seems limited to Portal:Current events, and they have been making consistent contribution to the page, which should be applauded. However, I would have to point out:

• Here and here the editor took it upon themselves to revert a permanently banned editor; unfortunately, the "banned editor" in question is still making contributions as of this moment, and appears to have a clean record. The reverts did not seem to have sufficient merits - certainly not given in their summaries.
• Here, in a rather contentious edit war, they accused someone who undid their previous revert of being a sock - without offering any evidence. Here they proceeded to make accusations of vandalism, on rather flimsy grounds. Possibly under the impressions that they had "consensus" and were fighting one single vandal, they attempted one further revert, going over WP:3RR. They were summoned to discuss on the talk page, but did not show up. The editor appeared to prefer arguing through edit summaries - which isn't what edit summaries are for. This kind of behavior has persisted.
• The editor's remarks have a tendency of being perceived as uncivil. Here they referred to someone as "delusional" - and while the previous editor might not have put the item under the appropriate heading, they did not either. Here they essentially derided an editor as having a pre-college grasp of the English language. In the page, they again went over WP:3RR.
• Rather snide remarks, as seen here, followed by a pointy dummy edit. Also seen here.
• They insist on using "Obama administration" in place of "The U.S.", and will rapidly revert any attempt to rephrase it, as seen here. I was personally a party in one of such instances, during which I was reverted, accused of committing "bias through omission", accused again, and again. I do admit in the heat of the moment I did not disengage when I should certainly have - although to be fair, I omitted the phrase because it did not appear anywhere in any of the sources given, a fact seemingly entirely lost to the editor. It appears while accusing others of perpetrating a bias, the editor also has a POV to push. Notably in the process the editor also reverted, without careful consideration, other edits that might be far less debatable, purely because they were angered by the debatable ones. In an unrelated case, source was yet again disrespected.
• Very quick to make accusations of bias, as seen here and here. Might have a point, though it could always have been expressed more elegantly.
• "who th fk is this biased guy!"
• Remarkably specific accusation.
• Not on Current events, but "are you a "PAID" agent for Mr. Doocy?"

I admit I might not be able to entirely keep my cool when dealing with this editor, so for now I should disengage. But this editor - if they could be brought from the venue of edit summaries - should be allowed an opportunity to rethink the way Wikipedia works, as well as how to deal with other editors, like-minded ones or not.

I would also like to bring to everyone's attention the hectic scene of Portal:Current events, where edit wars happen almost on a daily basis and where there is hardly any moderation going on. Given its time-sensitive nature, issues are rarely resolved through dialogue, consensus is rarely reached or even attempted. If nothing should be done, irrelevant content, POV-pushing and counter-POV-pushing will remain a recurring feature of that particular place. [User:Morningstar1814|Morningstar1814]] (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

As of now I am unsure whether the editor in question is willing to engage in discussions regarding their behavior - though it appears they've certainly received the message, as seen here, again through edit summaries, which is slightly confusing. If I'm reading it correctly, this complain has been regarded as a henious piece of propaganda. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jurre27 and Netherlands national football team

This user has been editing the article Netherlands national football team for a few years, and while his edits are helpful (updating the squad is all he does), they also consistently include wrong birthdays for players (see here for example: the birthdays of Jeroen Zoet, Michel Vorm and Karim Rekik are wrong. All of his contributions are similar). I've tried many times to reach out to him on his talk page, but he ignores anything posted there and keeps introducing the same errors to the article.

Maybe I should have posted here sooner, but I do believe he's editing with good intentions. Unfortunately, he just doesn't seem to listen, which means the article always has to be fixed after his edits. So yeah, posting here because I'm not sure what else to do. Kinetic37 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

He has now also reverted my edit in which I fixed this (That IP is his). Kinetic37 (talk) 22:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a short block will help him get the message? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Two rangeblocks (or more) for Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal

Because of ongoing activity, I think we could use two rangeblocks to help deal with the long-term abuse case known as the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal. The following two ranges are problematic:

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:....
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:....

Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disruption continues. Here are the two groups of IPs that, if rangeblocked, would greatly reduce the problem.

• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:B4:1162:81D:2001 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:F89E:B92B:3040:763F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:30EB:DCB9:4691:DD25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1 October 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:64AA:F8CC:FFD0:B789 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:9D73:FE72:903C:2E10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:6425:B488:DD7:4BDA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:AC8A:C684:76A3:F869 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:D8EB:6A66:B806:16E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 28 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:5BF:42DF:82F:60ED (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25 September 2016
• 2001:8003:24E7:AC00:19D:A8E9:5C50:83C3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 25–27 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1F6:7521:C02:2818 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 21 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:8456:6E75:6F01:5A3B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 17 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3892:BF67:1313:6A00 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:658A:57B1:68B7:51BE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 13–14 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:256E:561D:81E:47A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 11 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:403:8439:1BBB:1398 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 10 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:89D7:A4D0:F3FD:FB41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:B084:6AC1:8683:A659 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 7–8 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:F9FE:A22E:9C4:7250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4–6 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:E1ED:7B8A:4B63:6CD0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:3DD0:4330:2D3A:94AE (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDF:4090:B6FA:1F9F (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:A1B1:7026:F21E:EC88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 2 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:1065:F84F:3C30:D493 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2436:6500:DCDD:7D4:CA78:2794 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 31 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 30 August – 1 September 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:88EA:B279:8585:C7F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 29 August 2016
• 2001:8003:2546:1B00:499A:978E:5D68:5762 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 24 August 2016

It would be great to see this extremely persistent person blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

And another rangeblock is needed, to deal with more recent activity:

• 49.180.141.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.173.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.165.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 4 October 2016
• 49.180.160.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.138.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 3 October 2016
• 49.180.144.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 27 September 2016
• 49.180.145.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16 September 2016

This guy is obsessive and persistent in his vandalism. Are we giving up and letting him have his way? Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi Admin. Usser Lugnuts With lies and slander deleted my accurate work. My work Translate the site SourehCinema and Farabi. My work not copy. but usser Lugnuts Does not understand!. Please prevent bad work lugnuts. Irbox (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Irbox was blocked by Lugnuts for copyvio after multiple warnings about both copyvio and failure to cite sources, and unblock-request was declined by User:Oshwah basically as WP:CIR. Irbox takes the block as a personal insult, despite the run-up warnings by multiple editors that include both standard templates and personally written explanations trying to get through a possible language or comprehension barrier. Irbox responds with explicit incivility beyond merely responding to discussions at hand. Upon expiriation of the block, immediately returns to copyvio behavior (cut'n'paste from a variety of years'-old publications, no evidence of being the original translator). I'd say indef/CIR. DMacks (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've just seen Irbox's contributions flash-up on my watchlist. Again. It finished with this one at ANI (still not been directly notified of this, but lets leave that to one side for the time being). This user's talkpage is littered with notifications about failing to cite sources, requests to use reliable sources and, most importantly, copyvio notices. They seem to either ignore or be unaware of the issue around copyright. This morning they've gone through a wave 20 or so articles, restoring text that has been removed for either being unsourced or copyright violations. Lets look at some examples: Restore copyrighted text, unsourced awards] (fails WP:BURDEN), BLP violations, another copyvio plot, another BLP violation. And so on, and so on. They were blocked for doing just this, yet return to continue adding this straight after being blocked. They've also tried to do the same under at least two IP addresses (‎93.110.44.176 and ‎93.110.24.233). WP:CIR is clearly an issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I was half-tempted to block Irbox indefinitely per WP:CIR last time he appeared here, but another admin blocked them temporarily first. This time I have done so; they may be unblocked when they indicate that they understand the copyright and other problems, although I suspect that may be difficult given the language and other issues. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BK. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Volleynet (talk · contribs) is now engaging in the same uncited additions (literally) as Irbox. DMacks (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I reminded them of citing reliable sources and dropped the ANI notification on their talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This user is demonstrating a clear and fundamental lack of competence: suggestion. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked Volleynet as well. But this is a weird one; they have created stub articles in reasonable English in the past, which is something which appears to be completely beyond Irbox. Unless they copy-pasted, of course. I've left a note telling Volleynet that they could be unblocked if they can explain their behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Black Kite: -If they're distinctly different editing styles, is a compromised account likely? _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Snapdragon2727

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

---

• Snapdragon2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continued disruptive editing at the Deathstroke article, even after the final warning. The user tried to hide it by blanking their Talk Page. DarkKnight2149 04:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is already at WP:AN3. Why are you bringing it here? Patience, grasshopper. John from Idegon (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Users are allowed to blank their talk page, they stopped after receiving the edit-warring notice, and have since taken to the talk page. They should have been given more of an explanation besides a generic vandalism template that doesn't tell at all them what the problem was. Reporting here is overkill. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I wasn't aware that an edit war report had been filed. My apologies for unknowingly filing a second report (I guess this case is dismissed).

@Ian.thomson: They were told the problem in edit summaries. Not only that, but the Deathstroke edits constituted their only edits. And that's without taking into account that an anon was already edit warring with the same edits on both Deathstroke and Jason Todd before this new account suspiciously popped up ([90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]). As for the page blanking, I wasn't suggesting that that in itself is disruptive, but rather pointing out why the final warning isn't visibly seen there and that the blanking seemed like a means to hide it. DarkKnight2149 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Mass creation of articles

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

---

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

Muhd FUad has created a large number of articles in quick succession, most of which are of the form Foo is a Malaysian badminton player, and a single source, the same website in every case (a results database, so not a RS to establish notability). Most of the articles have an infobox, which includes a ranking, and these are often so high that it's unlikely the subject would ever pass notability. A number have been tagged for deletion. Some don't even have the sub-stub text, just an infobox and the website. I think a mass delete is a good start here. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree; this seems to be a good example. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, they have gone through and deleted most of the BLPPRODs/PRODs/CSDs. Working on a clean-up now ... Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted all the ones that were infobox only, or "X is a badminton player" without any other claim of notability - a total of 53. All the rest (a dozen or so) have at least some claim to notability and/or sources, although some if not all are probably candidates for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I prodded all of them, told the user that they'd have some time to fix the ones that might pass notability, and I also warned them that taking the Prods off without fixing the problems would be a bad idea. They didn't listen, removed the prods and fixed almost nothing. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water...  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Other edits like this are slightly odd. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly... that's just weird. This guy saved a few of his articles. Why would he do that?  InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Initially, Muhd FUad wasn't writing article text at all, posting just an infobox. There wasn't even an indication that the three-digits rankings of these players were in badminton. Now someone else is adding actual article text, and I'm measuring what's being said against WP:NBADMINTON. At least a few of these people may be notable under those criteria. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait...s/he blanked someone else's talk page? That's a WP:TPO violation (albeit inadvertent). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of blanking talk pages in this discussion. Did you mean to ask this somewhere else? Largoplazo (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

S/He is back making more articles. See Soong Joo Ven. As to the mention of blanking someone else talk page, it is above where Muffled said: "Other edits like this are slightly odd. ". However, I'm willing to AGF and guess that edit was probably a mistake.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

After a couple of rounds of restoring maintenance and BLPPROD tags removed by this editor and leaving warnings on his talk page, I've filed a report at WP:AIV. Largoplazo (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours for disruptive editing, in a last-ditch attempt to get his attention. If he makes no attempt to understand what he did wrong, next block should be indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry by JayJasper

Based on suspicious accounts editing at List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 I performed a CheckUser and came across a number of accounts which were being operated across a number of different IP addresses and useragents. CheckUser and a behavioural investigation indicated that User:JayJasper, a user with around 47000 edits, had been operating these accounts. After performing my own investigation I asked User:Bbb23 to do an independent check, and his results confirmed my own. The following accounts are CheckUser  Confirmed as being used by JayJasper (talk · contribs):

• BrightonC (talk · contribs)
• Cojovo (talk · contribs)
• CPguy (talk · contribs)
• Ddcm8991 (talk · contribs)

• Dwc89 (talk · contribs)
• Earlgrey T (talk · contribs)
• Feel da J (talk · contribs)
• Hm838 (talk · contribs)

• Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs)
• Newbreeder (talk · contribs)
• NextUSprez (talk · contribs)

• Rollins83 (talk · contribs)
• Romandave (talk · contribs)
• The Anti-Censor (talk · contribs)

These accounts have edited topics related to contemporary US politics, particularly regarding the US election, some of them over a number of years (the oldest account was created more than 6 years ago). The deceitfulness and avoidance of scrutiny from JayJasper is highly disruptive and contrary to the nature of the project. Some of the accounts listed below were used as vandalism only accounts and therefore used with the intention of disrupting the project, other have been used for good-hand/bad-hand editing. It is extremely likely, given that the sock puppetry from JayJasper has occurred over a number of years, that there are a large number of accounts which have not been used recently and so were not detected by Bbb23's and my investigation.

As a brief clarification, I am acting here as a CheckUser not as an arbitrator and I haven't discussed this matter with the Arbitration Committee.

Due to the long-term and insidious use of other accounts I have blocked JayJasper indefinitely. I've decided to make this a normal administrative block (as opposed to a checkuser block) so if the community decides here to modify it an admin wouldn't need to go through the CheckUser team.

On behalf of Bbb23 and I, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Predident [sic] Trump is going to build a wall to keep sockpuppets like this out. EEng 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

And Mexico is going to pay for it?Humour aside, I must commend Callanecc and Bbb23's efforts here. I say go straight for an indefinite site ban. Blackmane (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll add waterboarding then I'm on board. EEng 06:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• JayJasper is a great editor. I find these allegations very hard to believe. Nevertheless, even if they are true, the indefinite block should be decreased so that Jay can continue making great edits as the US election draws closer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hell, no. This is inexcusable behavior, giving the finger to the entire community behind its back for years. No number of "great edits" can counterweigh this. Goodbye forever, JJ, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. EEng 07:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See the reference to good hand/bad hand above. In cases like these there will always be a 'good editor'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's seriously some heavy-duty gaming going on. If there's a site ban proposed, I support it fully. Also, great work investigating and confirming this by the CU's. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree with all 3 above me (RickinBaltimore, Only in death, EEng). There's no excuse for this sort of extreme sockpuppetry, and I'd be reluctant to let the editor return to editing after just a year away and definitely not within the next month and a bit. I don't recognise JayJasper or any of the socks by name so this has nothing to do with that. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. If he still wants to edit three years from now, he can make a case then. Not one month, not one year. EEng 19:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

See [105]. User:Cojovo says he is the real master and that JayJasper and some of the other accounts are innocent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As with most socks, his statement lacks any kind of credibility. For example, he lists all of his socks. Yet, some of those accounts were created before he was, meaning he couldn't be the master. Moreover, assuming the comments are actually coming from JayJasper (the person), it's a great strategy. Acknowledge a bunch of accounts so you look honest but with the goal of being unblocked to continue editing (and socking). Cojovo noted only one non-stale account, I.C. Rivers (talk · contribs · count), which I've blocked as  Confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've also blocked the other accounts that Cojovo admitted to as suspected socks, although a couple of them didn't exist. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the analysis was wrong? In other words, how clear cut is this? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As open-and-shut as it gets.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that an editor who edits as frequently as JayJasper would suddenly stop editing without so much as a complaint on his talk page if he didn't know the jig was up. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cojovo has left more comments. See [106]. Based on the IP data available is this a plausible explanation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that as of 22:14, September 27, 2016‎ User:JayJasper has requested review of the block. While User:Callanecc decided not to mark the block as a checkuser block to allow the community to consider it here, the basis for the unblock request is a challenge to the checkuser data, which would be hard, or impossible for us to properly review here due to the confidentiality of checkuser information. Review of the determination that socking occurred should be left to the Checkusers, and eventually Arbcom. Given the substantial contributions of JayJasper, I hope such review occurs promptly. Monty₈₄₅ 23:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't find Jay's explanation convincing at all, but I've flagged it for another CheckUser to take a look at. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

He's actually been here a lot longer than you. I think he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There still isn't any doubt for me, and I imagine Bbb23 still agrees. That said, there's nothing stopping the community giving unblocking him or giving him the standard offer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A few additional comments. I would have CheckUser-blocked JayJasper. The technical evidence was matched and cross-matched many times over. The behavioral evidence was strong, and not just in the political topic area but in other subject areas that JayJasper has an interest in. I would not unblock JayJasper after any period of time, six months or longer, without a complete acknowledgment of his socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Per the unblock request, and the CU request by Callanecc, I ran some checks. The technical evidence of sockpuppetry is unequivocal. In particular, the edits from one apparently static IP address leave no doubt whatsoever that JasperJay has been engaging in the behavior that Callanecc and Bbb23 described above. In recent weeks, JasperJay has edited from this IP address within minutes of The Anti-Censor, Feel da J, NextUSprez, and Ddcm8991. Evidence from other ranges is also unambiguous. I would also recommend converting this to a checkuser block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Given we've now got confirmation from 3 CheckUsers that JayJasper has been extensively socking, I guess the only question is: Is the community sufficiently satisfied that the block should be converted to a CU block? Blackmane (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel this is needed, no standard offer sadly though. I understand some editors here are in disbelief, it reminds me a bit of Henry Plummer in this case as well the cat was let out of the bag. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane and Knowledgekid87: Another option might be that the community converts this to a site ban with a way back as has been proposed below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me, this would increase the time needed to come back. I want this to be a learnable offense though, if the punishment is too severe (multiple years) then what is the point in having a time limit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• He just admitted to the sockpuppetry on his talk page. However, he says that Miss Cherry Redd (talk · contribs) and BrightonC (talk · contribs) are other people that he knows.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Just looking at behavioral evidence, I don't find that assertion believable. I have a feeling the checkusers will agree based on technical data. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's remotely possible for Miss Cherry Redd but I doubt it, I very very strongly doubt BrightonC. The behavioural evidence makes it very unlikely and the technical evidence supports that conclusion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I feel this can be closed now as there is nothing more to discuss, someone should inform Jay of the community decision below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Standard offer or Clean start

Statement from JayJasper. Copied by Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, here I am with my hands up acknowledging - with great remorse and regret - that the sockpupetting allegations against me are indeed true. I first want to offer my deepest apologies to the entire community for these grievous actions, which are entirely indefensible and contrary to the standards of the Wikipedia community of which I have been privileged to have been a part of for nearly a full decade. I apologize also for my desperately lame attempts to initially deny these allegations in the face of crystal-clear evidence. There are no excuses or any justification whatsoever for these actions, for which I take full and complete responsibility for. I perfectly understand if any of the editors who I have frequently interacted with over are angry and/or deeply disappointed with my actions. I would certainly have similar feelings if I were in their position. If I can be given the opportunity to earn back the community's trust and goodwill, you can take it to the bank that I will work diligently and enthusiastically to do so. Although my behavior-in-question could never be explained away, and that there are zero - maybe even negative - legitmate reasons that could be given for it, I would nevertheless like to give a bit of insight as to how it came about. Around 7 years ago, I for some reason felt a need to "experiment" by editing in other personas. I found that it seemed to stimulate creativity and and a sense of "freedom" to edit from the vantagepoint of "someone else". Crazy, huh? Despite having been a Wikipedian long enough at that point to know better, I naively thought it would be just a short-term thing that wouldn't do any harm. Well, it just seemed to get easier and easier to do, and I guess it became somewhat (for lack of a better word) addictive. I started rationalizing to myself that editing through the multiple accounts was actually beneficial to Wikipedia because doing so actually enhanced my editing skills. I now know what a load of malarky that was, and that there are no justifications for stealth sockpuppeting and that single-editor focused editing is truly what works best. I can't tell you how badly I wish I had the good sense back then to "experiment" in a manner compliant with WP:SOCK#LEGIT, with full transparency. Alas, I did not, and...here I am. The great irony to all of this is that, just a few weeks before being "caught", the reality of just how absurdly out-control the sock accounts had become was beginning - in a big way - to set in. I then made myself a resolution that within a period of six months I would have all the socks "phased out" once and for all (I had reasoned that if I dropped them all "cold turkey" it might become obvious and look suspicious that these multiple editors all stopped at about the same time. Then, just two or three weeks later - boom! Like I said, irony.  I tell you this not to garner any sympathy or persuade you to in any way let me "off the hook". I just want give some perspective, and let you know that while that while my judgement in this whole matter was obviously piss-poor, my intentions and motivations were never in any way of ill will, nor intended to disrespect or spite the WP community. I know that does not make it right, or even more tolerable. I fully acknowledge the harm my thoughtless actions have done, and I regret it deeply. Nevertheless, I want everyone to know that I truly do respect the community despite having engaged in actions that do not comport with that sentiment. Oh, about those handful of good sock/bad sock edits, including the one that led to the "reveal": They came about as a result of a prankish work associate who thought it would be a real hoot to give me some vandalism to chase after while I was editing from an office computer, and he was logged in on another (which has a different IP address from the one I was using, but I had made edits from both, so...). Now, I know this may sound like "a likely story" and that I'm trying to deflect responsibility from myself, but that is in no way the case. Although I didn't initiate these edits, I knew what was taking place and could have - and should have - made a staunch effort to prevent it from happening, but failed to do so. I therefore have complicity in, and bear full responsibility for, them. I just want it to be known that this sort of thing is not something I would initiate or do "for jollies" at Wikipedia's expense. Nor is it something I would ever allow to happen again, should I have the good fortune of being granted a second chance of being an active member of the Wikipedia community again. I would also like to note that I never personally edited under the usernames "Miss Cherry Redd" or "BrightonC". They are (well, were) the legitimate accounts of two people I know personally who started edited WP with my encouragement. Both edited from computers that were shared with me at home or work. Among the many regrets I have over this whole episode is they have lost their accounts as a result of my utter stupidity. If and when I am granted a second chance by the community, I will remember to utilize Template:User shared IP address on any and all applicable accounts. Having acknowledged my transgressions, I steadfastly vow to learn from, and never repeat, them. Having done so, I humbly and respectfully ask the community to extend to me the WP standard offer, or some variation of it. Knowing that some of you understandably have misgivings about doing so, let it be known that I am open to having editing privileges under probationary measures of some kind. Such measures would be prudent and more than fair. I am also open to any suggestions and feedback you may have concerning actions I might take to better my chances of having editing privileges restored. Given the opportunity to make a WP:Clean start, I could begin anew with a new account that is unstained by the legacy of sockpuppetry that brought about this whole unfortunate episode, but that continues the positive legacy of the JayJasper account. Please note that this positive legacy encompasses nearly a decade of constructive work that has benefitted the project: creating, improving, and cleaning up articles; constructive participation in talk page discussions and Wikiprojects; adding relevant content and reliable sources to articles, etc. While I know that my many positive contributions do not erase or excuse the harm done by my despicably poor choices in editing methods, I would like to believe that a decade of positive, productive contributions that have benefitted the readers of Wikipedia (and aren't they who WP exists for, and to whom the project has it first and foremost responsibility?) must count for something, and carry heavy weight at that. Whatever your decision, I thank you for your careful considerationm--JayJasper (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. 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 will at least honor Jay's request for a community decision regarding a standard offer, or clean start after x time. Given how many socks though I do not feel that an "im sorry" is enough as trust is like at 0 for this editor. So I ask the community to state your input here on the matter... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'll repeat: this is about the worst thing an editor can do. I say a five-year absence at the minimum, but I'll settle for three. I'm not kidding. EEng 02:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. The long statement now inserted above doesn't change my opinion. Actions have consequences.
• Just for the record I think that 6-8 months or one year at least is in order, if we are talking about multiple years it might as well be a site ban. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a site ban, and the standard offer possibly extended plus 2 or so months. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I find the above statement by JayJasper disingenuous in the context of this unblock request made a mere three days ago where they try and argue that they have not been socking. Instead this shows to me a calculated and willful attempt to further deceive the community and operate outside our policies and guidelines. There are literally thousands of edits between the accounts and the sophistication to run such a operation took time and planning. It will take the community possibly weeks or months to even assess how much damage through forced influence and consensus these accounts have had on a wide array of topics. I think a standard offer could be applied with heavy restrictions on editing topics relating to US politics as well as endorsing this as a CU block. Mkdw^talk 03:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• To paraphrase "Well dang it, you caught me finally. Good job there, but I wasn't really all that bad. Honest!" Yes, you were, JayJasper. Deception after deception, even after the initial block. Your actions after that eroded more faith and trust than your socking before. At LEAST a year and even then it's not with a new account. I would not support a clean start for someone with such dirty hands. Ravensfire (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• I would support the standard offer. Realistically, an editor capable of running socks undetected for so long, with non-fringe interests, will be able to create a new account in 6-12 months and blend back into the community, regardless of whether we extend the standard offer or not. I feel it would serve the community better to have the transparency that will occur through the standard offer. This is not intended to diminish the severity of the breach of trust that occurred, but to take a pragmatic approach moving forward, providing a path to return to editing that doesn't involve violating more rules and policies. Monty₈₄₅ 04:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• No sockmaster has ever been, can ever be, granted the privilege of a clean start. It's even stated in the first section of the WP:CLEANSTART policy, Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here); or is being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct; or is attempting to evade scrutiny, may not have a clean start. That they have come clean counts in their favour. Furthermore, in the very first paragraph of the policy page, he new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. That JayJasper wants a clean start after some period is a fundamental misunderstanding of that policy. 612 month ban not appealable for that duration, then standard offer after that. Blackmane (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I had been mulling this over and was writing up a revision to my original proposal of a 6 month ban but forgot to save the edit. I agree with Ad Orientem that a 6 month ban is really not enough for the level of socking seen here. Hence I've also revised my support for a 12 month ban with no appeal instead of 6. Blackmane (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• I support a siteban with the option to ask for the standard offer after 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer for the sole reason that it's the standard offer. It's not a gift to be given out or taken away, it's an acknowledgement that people can acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them, and when they do it makes us better as a community. I don't believe even one slightest bit that JayJasper has really acknowledged the damage they've done, that their deliberate and ongoing violation of trust is the biggest of deals in a community built on consensus and collaboration. It's evident in the number of editors in the section above leaping to their defense, saying it can't possibly be true, that there must be some mistake. How long will it take JayJasper to really recognize the damage that their actions have done to that trust? I don't see it in this statement here at all. And they should definitely not have a clean start account, that's not learning from your mistakes, that's hiding them, and they've hidden this long enough. I support six months, because that's the standard offer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 05:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban, no clean start, standard offer after 6 months. Keri (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think that when or if this user can come back that their "pending changes reviewer" status should be revoked: [107]. Based on the severity of the socking I do not think that this user should be trusted with anything upon return. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef Block w/ Possibility of Standard Offer but only after twelve months, not six. The offense is too egregious for a six month break. And to be clear, if there is any repetition I will support a CBAN. Oppose clean start. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block & Standard offer but oppose a clean start. Also Support revocation of Pending Changes Reviewer status. Mainly due to the length and severity of the socking, and the blatant attempt at deceiving the community. I feel as though if he gets a clean start we will be right back here with the same issues. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Indef block for 12 months, then the standard offer after that time. JayJasper realized what he did was wrong, which is good, however the deed was still done. A 12 month block is needed for the actions taken, after which time I agree with the standard offer. In that same regard, if there is ANY sign he socked at all during this 12 months or after, then I support a full siteban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support standard offer. JayJasper has been a net-benefit to the encyclopedia for the past 10 years.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

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

List of American Crime episodes

Please check the recent history of the page. My guess is there is some class project or a group of friends set out to mass-create new episode pages like American Crime Season Two Episode One and American Crime Season Two Episode Two (whose titles unfortunately do not follow TV episode titling guidelines). Users in question (there are possibly more):

• Svancleve (talk · contribs)
• Kmhart12 (talk · contribs)
• Kbrennan13 (talk · contribs)
• MeOgren14 (talk · contribs)
• Jennaboelter (talk · contribs)
• Mgaffke (talk · contribs)
• DavidEuerle (talk · contribs)
• Linneascherber1 (talk · contribs)
• JManglos14 (talk · contribs)
• Alloyd12 (talk · contribs)

I don't have a doubt that these editors are acting in good faith and want to contribute, but it's clear that the new users are unfamiliar with article guidelines and titling, and needs some cleanup. I'm currently suggesting that the new page creations are not ready for the article space and should either be deleted or moved to draftspace (with more appropriate titles). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

From the ongoing page creations, pages like American Crime Season Two Episode Five are the same as American Crime Season Two Episode Four, etc. and essentially have no content. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of the new page creations can be listed at Special:PrefixIndex/American Crime Season. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You might want to start a discussion at Talk:List of American Crime episodes. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement review

Can I have some eyes on this AE filing against Sean.hoyland?

The tl;dr:

• Editor makes several reverts to an ARBPIA related article they never edited before.
• Two of those reverts are 5 hours apart, violating the 1RR restriction. In the edit summary of the second revert (but neither of the two previous ones), the editor says they are removing a BLP violation.
• Editor does not participate on the talk page, refuse to discuss their reverts or explain what exact BLP violation they see.
• Editor is reported at AE.
• Editor posts a BATTLEGROUND filled rant at AE, claiming, among other things, that he is not required to discuss anything with "ethno-nationalist POV-pushers"
• One admin mentions and rejects BLP claim. Other admins do not address it.
• No admin addresses the editor's outright refusal to discuss his reverts.
• No admin addresses outright BATTLEGROUND behavior.

There is elaboration of each point in the actual AE filing linked above. What do you guys think? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have not previously encountered the law of holes. I think it unlikely that this incident, stale as it is, will result in sanction. Come back if and when there is a repeat of the purported problem. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this incident was handled badly at AE and would like a review. I think the way it was handled sets a very bad precedent in which an editor can refuse to discuss their edits just because they don't like some of the people participating in the discussion. I think this goes against some very basic Wikipedia principles and would like to hear from the wider community. I don't care if it results in a sanction or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems you do care quite a bit, judging by how may user talks you've posted on about about this and the related AE thread. TimothyJosephWood 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that as the closer, when they appealed to me I suggested notifying the other uninvolved admins who participated in the AE request, as their comments are under review as well. I also believe the editor is acting in good faith, so I do not believe a WP:BOOMERANG is needed here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I notified the admins who participated and the editor the original filing was against, per The Wordsmith's suggestion on his talk page. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Brawer was quoted as critiquing Khalidi's work on the ethnicity of original populations in Palestine. The article in dispute was:

• Walid Khalidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See some related threads:

• Discussion at NORN
• Complaint on the article talk page.

The complaint filed about Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs) at AE seems to be that he reverted without discussion and technically broke 1RR, though he claimed a BLP justification for his second revert. (BLP because the sentence quoted from Moshe Brawer may show Brawer slightly misquoting the original primary document, Village Statistics 1945, by putting together two sentences into one and omitting some material). I made one comment in the AE but then didn't return. The whole thing seemed to fall into a gray area. If anyone could document an ongoing problem with Sean.hoyland's editing over numerous I/P articles, you might have a case. But my guess is that he doesn't stand head and shoulders above others who work in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I've changed 'slightly misquoting' to just 'misquoting' above, per User:Zero0000. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, so here's what happened. Sean.hoyland committed a technical infraction. A couple of the usual suspects got worked up about it, but nobody else cared so nothing got done. It was weeks ago now, so nothing will get done. The close of the AE was procedural, the closer merely reflected the general apathy evident in the discussion. And now, back to editing Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, you wanted more eyes on it (though you already got quite a few, I count six different admins discussing the matter.) So if seven will be enough, I agree—the close was fine, and drop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Ed, with respect I disagree with the phrase "slightly misquoted" in your description. Actually was a major distortion. To summarize, Brawer's review charged Khalidi (the subject of the BLP), with using an inaccurate source by quoting it as saying "The population estimates published here [are the result of a very detailed work conducted by the Department of Statistics, by using all the statistical material available on the subject. They] cannot, however, be considered other than rough estimates which in some instances may ultimate be found to differ considerably, from the actual figures." but with the bracketed text silently removed. The information that the government authors of the source worked very hard on it using all the information at their disposal is obviously essential in assessing it. Every historian would consider such a distortion as an unwarranted attack on their professionalism and I don't think it is too much of a stretch to argue that the BLP rules require us to not repeat such distortions on Wikipedia. Zero^talk 22:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse close - The purpose of a review isn't to retry the case, it can only be to see if it was closed within policy and no major mistakes were made. Unlike ANI, community discussion doesn't have to be given weight as we are looking at the application of Arb restrictions, a purely administrative function, so for me it is more a matter of looking at the diffs, the policy and the close. An admin doesn't even have to consider the opinions of other admin, for that matter. Blunt, but factual. The BLP claim was weak at best but plausible, as demonstrated by the lack of discussion. Sean was warned by EdJohnson, both of you were mildly warned by Drmies and Guy, and three other admin wanted to topic ban Epsom Salts. Admin aren't robots, they are encouraged to look at the totality of circumstances and act accordingly. They are not limited to only looking at the evidence presented by the filing party. In this case, I don't see any technical errors. Wordsmith's close does not need to reflect any consensus, per policy and Arb precedent, but actually DID reflect a consensus of admin so it shouldn't be a surprise if it has broad support. On a personal note, I think you are drastically overstating your case, Epsom Salts No More Mr Nice Guy, and this is not benefiting you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that neither the filer of the original report, nor this challenge, is User:Epson Salts. Both were filed by User:No More Mr Nice Guy, another editor entirely. Epsons Salts hasn't even posted here yet. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Corrected, but obviously the result is the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jvm21

Please can someone block this user? Why? Well this diff in my sandbox, and if that wasn't enough, there's this and this. My original post on his talkpage is in relation to their continued additions of unsourced information, which they was previously blocked for at ANI. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in WP:ROPE, so I gave him a 4-im for NPA. I have to step away for a while, so report it here if he continues. Katie^talk 14:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jvm is lucky Katie saw this first. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the earlier ANI thread, the one which led to a block, apparently, but if they continue to add unsourced information than a NOTHERE block may well be appropriate. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So I'm OK to call someone on here a cunt and only get a warning? Nice message that conveys. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I told someone earlier that they can call me a dick if they like, so sure, you can call me a cunt too. Anyway, I understand your response but if they've been warned already I can't really negate that and block. One hopes that this would be enough, and a next time they won't get away with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

FYI, my blocklog says otherwise  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There won't be a next time, as that was the first (and I'm 100% certain) last time they've ever edited outside of the article space. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor spamming Talk pages with invitations to join an "Association"

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

---

Editor TheStrayDog has begun posting invitations, apparently randomly, on the Talk pages of other editors to become members of the "Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia (AWWDCCW)", an organization which TheStrayDog has apparently just created. This seems to me like a misuse of WMF facilities for activities not directly related to the project, but that may just be me. Posting here for consideration and discussion by other editors and admins. General Ization ^Talk 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Is he just pinging randos, or is there some rhyme or reason to the people he's pinging? If it's the latter, I don't see why he can't keep doing it. Also, have you talked to him enough to know if it's the former or latter, @General Ization:? I think you may have been too quick to take this to ANI. pbp 15:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: hello dear! I didn't know about that rule . I will stop it right now also so sorry for this fault .thanks for mentioning me. best wishes. The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I haven't talked with him or her about it; some of us are actually supposed to be working during the working day. It may be perfectly fine; I simply thought some other eyes should take a look at this before he or she got too far into the effort. General Ization ^Talk 15:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Hello again! I was wonder to ask if it's illegal to ask users to join ? asking is not illegal I thought? but if you talking about a massive invitation I think may be ! can you tell me more or send me the exact rule? tell me more.The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Being unsure if your activity is appropriate, I brought the question here for discussion. I will point out that WP:TALK contains these statements of policy: "[T]he purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." Perhaps you could explain how you feel your messages and/or the association you have created will improve the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

As a point of information, the Talk page messages are being posted using a newly created template at Template:Join AWWDCCW. General Ization ^Talk 16:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization: Yes. not a social network but I didn't say happy birthday to users or didn't poke them or invite them to a cafe! I know you are an American an I am an Iranian our politics are not on the right way but we are people and must be human and don't judge as a politician. It seems you are republican and hates Iranians no? want to make a frame-up against me to stop my peaceful stuff . but i don't think so . so amuse as a good faith and don't have any complaint against you [kidding]. happy editing. The Stray Dog Talk Page 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh, no, I am neither a Republican (not that that is at all relevant or any of your business) nor hate Iranians, and I suspect that you are not improving your standing here by making such statements, even in jest. Could you respond to my suggestion above? General Ization ^Talk 17:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe he meant a small-r republican. EEng 19:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the candidates takes the podium – EEng

Well, yes, I suppose I would be resistant to the return of a monarchy in the United States. Will be watching tonight's debate with keen interest. General Ization ^Talk 19:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What the hell does him being American and you being Iranian have to do with anything? 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Is that you 74? Its great to see you back! I have no idea what this conversation is about but I thought I would just say hi! I remember you fondly for helping me many moons ago when I just started in this err place. Simon.Irondome (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I think there's something to look at here. Not suggesting that TheStrayDog is not here or either WP:NOTNOTHERE; but a couple of things are slightly bothersome. The user was blocked by Someguy1221, for many reasons (disruptive editing, including edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags); ten days later, they suggest it was an 'unintentional' block. A read of the archives shows they have been warned of this behaviour time and time again; and as for the political remarks above, a glance at a previous user page] suggests they are not versed in our guidelines in polemical pages. This shows they have been previously advised as to webhost policy, which is under discussion currently. Replies such as this and this do not inspire confidence that they are actually listening to what other editors are saying; combined with a TP still full of warnings, little enough seems to be changing to suggest that even if there is no intentional disruption, WP:CIR might apply. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I second this. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So dear fellows! I'm here right now and want to say Peace and do not mess with each other for some typical reasons. We are all human, who after this election that which seems will make trump as president of US (because Hillary got a cold), we all going to judgment day and then maybe heaven (I mean after WWIII). get ready for heaven (or hell if you are devil as much as that T-Guy) [laughing and waiting for that debate on BBC Persian]. The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheStrayDog; I guess I could probably redux my suggestion to CIR then. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, allow me to expand my request for consideration by pointing out that the editor seems thus far to be either unwilling or unable to explain how this activity benefits the project. General Ization ^Talk 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

So I wanna say I stopped it for a long time as @General Ization: said it that can be illegal. close the discussion please . if you want. thanks anyway. and be on Peace. bye.The Stray Dog Talk Page 20:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@TheStrayDog: Please expand further on that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Expand? ok, i said that i didn't know that rule which may ban me to invite people to an association. also there is a lot of templates that work like that and i thought it's not illegal. if it's not legal, ok, i stopped for a long time ago and don't want to bother people here. bye The Stray Dog Talk Page 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This invitation you posted not even a half an hour ago doesn't support your claim that you have stopped. General Ization ^Talk 15:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) On looking at the page they are linking people to, I think a bigger problem is not the spamming ("random" is essentially impossible to prove, and AGF prevents us from forcing the criterion out of him) but the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude assumed on the page. The sentence "This association is for those who believe that Wikipedia should [...] not [be] a place just for promote a race, religion, language, country, belief and/or an ethnicity" very clearly indicates that the author believes there is a substantial number of people on the project who think Wikipedia should be a place to promote this, that and the other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and I am not sure if someone who thinks this way about the project and its members should be editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Realized immediately after clicking "save changes": Note that I am not saying there aren't a lot of editors who probably do think Wikipedia is for promoting a religion. There certainly are, and probably those who hold to the other jingoistic, nativist, racist views listed, too. But I am not trying to create an "association" for people on "my side" to fight back. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you just look at the totality of his edits since coming off his block, there's not much to inspire confidence. He's come down from his overaggressive attitude and edit warring, sure, but mostly it's just adding redundant information to articles, adding unsourced content to articles, making unsourced assertions on talk pages, and engaging in one really trivial content dispute. The almost complete lack of edit summaries is unhelpful, and the condescending way he refers to other editors "my dear" is just annoying. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about the overall issues, and I do not mean to imply a position one way or the other. But about the "my dear" thing, I know several Iranian Americans, and the use of the phrase is very common among them. It kinda loses something in translation, but I'd be inclined to AGF about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Of course it's probably a Farsiism and Iranian editors with less-than-native command of English will make such mistakes, and of course we should assume good faith the first time, but now that he has been asked to stop, has claimed he understands what he is doing wrong, and has then continued to do so anyway, we should begin to ask whether this is the kind of good-faith mistake we can continue to allow. English Wikipedia editors need to be able to communicate with each other in English, and editors with low levels of English should be at least capable of understanding when they are told that their English is in error and comes across as arrogant to most native speakers. TheStrayDog claimed below that he understood, but somehow has continued to do so nevertheless. If he kept to himself and only made minor edits, and behaved more humbly when criticized, then maybe this would be acceptable, but aggressively defending his actions with multiple explanation marks and insulting his critics ("you are wasting your time") is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As I hope that I already made clear, I was commenting only about the phrase (because it had just been brought up as "condescending" and "just annoying"), that's all. I'm not implying anything else about this situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I accepted my faults above, in my first respond and an admin closed the discussion for once. Also I have stopped for more than a day. please close the discussion , as you wish. it will be nice of you . thanks anyway. The Stray Dog Talk Page 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning indef-block. Clearly he hasn't learned anything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hijiri, That question was real and it's a misunderstanding. i do not try to mess with you . I try to be good with you and have a good humor. but you are trying to sentence me. im talking about peace and i accepted my faults and trying to be good but whats wrong with you ??? seeking a way for blocking me???. you ar seeking even from my further actions to find something for convicting and bollocking me??!!! you are an editor, you are wasting your time for this simple situation. im so sorry for us. The Stray Dog Talk Page 13:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You still don't get it. I am not "seeking a way" to get you blocked. I am beginning to think more and more that your being blocked might be the best way for the community to deal with a problem it is having. The problem is your constantly annoying other editors by trying to engage them in conversation about topics that have nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. You have said several times that you understand what you did wrong, but at the same time as claiming to understand you keep doing the same things. By accusing me of "seeking" to block you, you are continuing in the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour I called you out for above. And since being called out for use of "dear" you have called me thus no less than twice. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I don't call you dear anymore, pay attention that admins may judge your behaviors and your claims here, im so here and i had/have significant edits here and will have too. you are wasting your time, and its you which are not here to build an encyclopedia you are here to ban/block active users for some special reasons. for example likely you may oppose to our Association or me who am an inclusinist(maybe you're a deletionist) . also you have blocked too and you are not eligible to say users are here or not. this is an encyclopedia and we don't want to waste our time with sentencing other users for saying Dear and having Good Humor. i called you dear and you are convicting me for just calling you dear ? really ?? and then you are claiming im not here??. look at your behavior then judge who is not here, me and you?.The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour ("you may oppose to our Association"), insulting other users, impugning their good faith, proclaiming them to be WP:NOTHERE without any evidence, threatening them with needless boomerangs solely for reading a thread on ANI and responding to it, WP:IDHT behaviour (being called out here for calling people "dear", claiming you understand what you did wrong, continuing to call people "dear", being called out again, and then aggressively defending oneself as having "good humour") and trawling through their edit histories and block logs to find "dirt" to throw in their faces ... TheStrayDog, you're really not making yourself look any better with these edits, and are making me believe more and more strongly that the best solution is for you to leave the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That's looking more and more like the best option. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: close the discussion please . as you closed first time once after my acceptance of my fault . for third time I want to say to assure you I accepted and understood my fault (adding that template) and I stopped it at the time and don't want to waste other users' time and make problem here . I'm calling peace and I'm here to build and encyclopedia. also i will fix my errors as soon as possible . If i didn't please note me at my talk page . thank you so much. The Stray Dog Talk Page 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We're past the point where it'd be right for me to do that. @Hijirl88: I think indef block is overly excessive. pbp 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that when I say "indef" I don't mean "permanent". Blocks are preventative, and blocking someone who was annoying other users until this was brought to ANI, and then claimed they understood what was wrong and kept doing it anyway, and then someone else said they should be blocked, and then they said they understood what was wrong and would stop and kept doing it anyway is actually a pretty reasonable move. If they indicate that they genuinely understand what they were doing wrong and will do their utmost to change, they can be unblocked. "overly excessive" implies some kind of blocking-as-punishment ideology under which the "punishment" should fit the "crime". But this is just a user making other users' editing experience less enjoyable apparently through some kind of competence problem; no "crime" and no "punishment". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note that TheStrayDog has essentially only been editing English Wikipedia for four months (they made 29 edits before that, all of them minor). Since then, they have been blocked once for 48 hours for "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, making false accusations, and removal of valid maintenance tags", and in that time appealed their block twice, both times being rejected because their appeal did not indicate that they understood why they had been blocked; then, after the second appeal was rejected, they claimed that the block had been "punishment". Is this user really understanding why their edits are inappropriate? Are they likely to listen to what others are telling them if they are not blocked? Will they even listen to what others are telling them if they are blocked? Those article edits that aren't some form of POV-pushing or edit-warring all appear to be minor, gnomish maintenance edits -- are these edits really worth the drain on the community's energy this user is causing? (Normally I don't trawl through other editors' edit histories and block logs, but when they do this to me for no apparent reason, I feel it's fair game.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment With every post, stray digs his hole deeper and deeper. I'd also like to point out his terrible grammar and remind everyone of WP:CIR. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when have anonymous accounts had any status when it comes to criticizing the grammar or hole digging abilities of others? Nothing specific regarding infringement of Wikipedia rules has been presented. There are lots of silly templates out there, with editors claiming to belong to this and that group (sometimes for valid content editing, sometimes just to be humorous). TheStrayDog has said he will not be posting the messages anymore, so that should be the end of it. TheStrayDog - I think you should not post anything more in this thread; you have said enough to explain your case and anything more risks manipulation by others. Oh, and maybe also stop posting welcome messages on new editors' talk pages - the people who do that sort of thing are generally wanabe administrators who think they can attain that position in 3 months (alas, in the past some actually did) by ticking the right boxes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: TheStrayDog is clearly engaged in battleground behaviour and doesn't seem interested in being civil. They also have repeatedly claimed they have read and understood the complaints the rest of us are making, and then continued engaging in the same behaviour -- either they are lying, or they are incapable of working with others constructively. All of this unambiguous violation of policy, on top of behaving like a dick to me with the trawling through my edit history in an attempt to dig up dirt on me -- the last time I was blocked that wasn't based on a technicality that was quickly overruled when I indicated that I understood what I had done wrong was a year ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you think 74.70.146.1 is engaged in some kind of sockpuppetry, block-evasion, or otherwise problematic behaviour, the burden is on you to demonstrate it; otherwise, he/she is just one more editor expressing their opinion here. (Note that I am not prejudiced against the idea that 74.70.146.1 is in fact engaged in some kind of content dispute with TheStrayDog and is acting accordingly in an attempt to force the latter off the project; I am just not prejudiced in favour of such an idea either. What I am prejudiced against is the idea that the opinion of someone who doesn't have an account or isn't logged into it at the moment is less valuable than that of someone who registered an account in 2013 or 2014. As far as I am concerned, both you and TSD are definitely newbies when compared to me, while I have no idea how long 74.70.146.1 has been editing.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

On and off since 2006, just never bothered to create an account. And no, I have no beef with stray. I was just reading ANI for lulz, came across this posting and looked more into it. I care about the project and think stray is bad for it; simple as that. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Observation from an admin - There does seem to credibility (and consensus) that WP:CIR is in play, and the diffs seem to support this conclusion, as does a random sampling of diffs and the "association" itself. I see a lot of other odd editing that again supports the consensus here. [108], [109] seem to be a waste of time for the community, and that is what is at stake, the wasting of the communities time. To be clear: unsolicited advertising is disruptive, evidenced by the fact that we are here, and previous experience. I almost closed with an indef block, but I'm open to hear why I shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any scope for mentoring Dennis Brown Dennis? What do the others think? It depends just how far gone the situation is. Still a net plus, salvagable or a drain? Any evidence that the user has positively helped the project? Irondome (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I will leave that for the community to decide, I can't really vote and close, and no other admin has come into the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors that go around placing unsolicited warnings are much more disruptive, imo, than the occasional unsolicited spam. When is something going to be done about them? With TheStrayDog and his welcome messages. and "association", and creation of pointless categories and so on, I just see someone probably reading and acting on a chapter in the unwritten "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months of editing" guidebook. Maybe the incompetence is in that editor's execution of its advice. Taking the unabashed box ticking route to administratorship (aka "The Wikicology Way"), the margin between complete success and complete failure, becoming an administrator or being indefinitely blocked during the process of trying, seems wafer thin for the 6 month express method. Steady-as-you-go box ticking, however, has much better results. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but you seem to be the only one making the (unsupported) claim that he is attempting to fast track to adminship, which only relates to his motives, not his actions. CIR is at its roots, consistent disruption done in good faith because the person lacks the ability to understand what they are doing wrong. That seems to be the main theme and it IS supported by diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They didn't get rid of that 'unintentional block' userbox either. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Any disruption seems very storm-in-a-teacup stuff - assorted "odd edits" (as you called them), barely registering as disruption at all, the occasional cultural misunderstanding, like calling someone "my dear" (oh the horror!). For that, indefinitely blocked? Really? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

So you are offering to mentor him then? It isn't enough to complain about the solution, you have to have a better solution of your own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want I could. However, it is not something I have done before. My ongoing advice to him would be mostly talk page related, keeping an eye on those, advising that, basically, don't post anything unless it is necessary for legitimate content generation reasons, and also reminding him to give edit summaries (he often doesn't) and use article talk pages more. I'd also suggest he cuts down on all those very non-evidence based userboxes that are on his user page (again this looks like wannabe-administrator tickboxing to me). Future content issues he might be involved in might be very specialized so I would be recommending him getting wider advice, such as RfCs, if content conflicts arise - (I doubt that his assertion that "Iranian-American" is an actual nationality will stand up to scrutiny [110]). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Then by all means, get him to agree here and I'm willing to take a chance. Mentoring isn't that hard, it is just giving tips along the way, but it requires him agreeing to LISTEN to you. Otherwise, I don't see a lot of choice, and frankly I don't have a lot of faith it would work but blocks are cheap, so I'm willing to give it a try. I think 3 months of mentoring would tell us, again, if he says he agrees to listen, and says so HERE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pinging TheStrayDog for his comment on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: hello again! dear Dennis Brown and dear other users! I said all the time that I am not prefect so I didn't claim I'm a professional editor and/or a veteran. I just want to be a good citizen in this society, I really try to be. but some users behave me like a foreigner here, no patience, no help, no guide, no assume as a good faith. at the first time my username was AmirMuhammad1 which is an Islamic name I changed it just because I felt some users are judging me based on religion and race. so I established that association to decrease this actions (for example one user called me as Farsisim which is a fascist title, so after that I put my religion and ethnic templates out of my user page. I think with these kinda insults nobody could be good here). being together as a human being, that is all I want. I had/have some errors like some any other user and also some good or bad edits. I sometimes accepted my faults like that ping I told above. I try to listen, want to, and I am here to listen because this is a society and I believe it too much. thanks The Stray Dog Talk Page 23:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Great, TheStrayDog, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Tiptoethrutheminefield has offered to mentor you, to work with you and teach you. This is to keep me from having to block you. This means you need to pay attention to what he is saying, he is here to help you. It boils down to either you say yes and accept mentoring, or you are likely to be blocked. Do you accept this? Can you slow down and LISTEN more, talk less, and let Tiptoethrutheminefield help you? This means that before you do something where there is a risk of a problem, you go ask his opinion first. He will watch and may revert you but will explain why. I'm looking for you to say yes or no here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks dear @Dennis Brown: absolutely the answer is "yes" as i said I'm here to listen cuz this is a society and nobody's here to fight. The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TheStrayDog. Greetings. You say above "No help, no guide". Mentoring is help and guidance. It is being offered to you by a colleague. Please read this fully. Wikipedia:Mentorship. It explains what mentorship is and how it can be applied. I would suggest the community allows TheStrayDog time to fully read and understand the link I have given. I would suggest 24 hours. Will you read this and come back to this thread tomorrow at about this time? This will clarify your understanding of a Wikipedia essay to the community. If you are happy with the idea of mentorship, please indicate this when you have read this. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, yes, I'm ok with the mentorship. but I forgot to say if its possible for you change the mentor user, please get me another mentor. only because he have blocked more than 7 times and his user/talk page is so messy, even more than me. I can't understand how he can teach me something he couldn't do!? thanks. The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case I will mentor you. I have mentored five colleagues, several with community assent. All are still with the project. One is under a well-deserved 1 month block. A mentor can only do so much after the mentoring is over. TTTTMF is a good person, but you have some latitude in choice. I am formally offering you mentorship, with the permission of the community. We will discuss the terms on my Talkpage when I have analysed your problems fully. I would ask you kindly not to edit for 48 hours on articles while we discuss mentorship. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, understood. I'm reading Wikipedia:Mentorship right now! I will be waiting for you! happy editing dear Simon! The Stray Dog Talk Page 00:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Your first task is to fully read the essay Wikipedia:Mentorship.Please clearly indicate your acceptance here. It is vital you read the linked essay I have given you as your first task. Please watchlist my talkpage as I will be discussing the terms of your mentorship there. Please do not edit articles for 48 hours while we clarify arrangements. I need you to agree to that urgently, as you are in a hole and must stop digging now till you learn to dig professionally. Dennis Brown Dennis, how does this sound to you? Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Sounds like you know what you are doing to me. Tiptoethrutheminefield has volunteered to mentor, but if you want to assist, that would be good. I agree with the direction you are taking, I'm happy to hand off here. I don't want to have to block someone, but something has to change. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Roger that Dennis Dennis Brown. A quick word to you mentoree TheStrayDog. Do NOT drag other colleagues past issues up in such a discussion as this. I will teach you how to be more gentle and to think of the other persons feelings, in your comments and edit summaries. Please do not do that again. It is for your own good my friend. I would also ask you to watchlist my talkpage. I have been watching and you have not done it yet. Please do it now. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind there is a language gap, so I suggest keeping it simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Irondome: Thanks, I still want you to be my mentor! I already watchlisted you!, and will be waiting for your mentions. If I didn't come it means I'm not online, but as soon as possible, I will be here to help resolve the problems. health and wealth. The Stray Dog Talk Page 01:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

TheStrayDog, I strongly advise you not the accept Irondome's offer. Based on examples of his past mentorship, I do not consider him to be a competent mentor, both in his knowledge of infractions (in particular, talk page usage guidelines - the very thing you have been accused of most failing in) and in the manner of his guidance (extreme reluctance to provide any criticism, acting as a defender of the editor being mentored rather than as an advisor, giving strong praise for feint or near zero progress, etc.). While it might be easy in the short term to have someone like Irondome, in the long term it won't help change any of your editing style and you will probably end up back here. My own offer is still open, if you wish to accept that one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have interacted on quite a few occassions with the user in question, and as a result of that, I believe I can pretty much "safely" say that this user is simply lacking the needed competence in order to edit here, which he is, more importantly, absolutely not willing to to learn either. These issues will continue forever, unless some action is mandated. So, be prepared for more feigned promises, and more loads of time consuming burden for the community. I don't know how many times I have thought to myself that he should be given extra chances, extra opportunities, blablala. But then I realized -- he just absolutely doesn't care! I have suggested him on so many occassions to consult admins for help, to request a tutor, or to even visit the TeaHouse, but he never ever listened to these proposals, and only gave me those feigned promises, which he's giving you guys (to my genuine amazement) once again here as well. Consider reading this revision as well as this and this one (all three are archived). They are a further attestment to this issue. I won't even mention the number of times that he received notices/warnings through edit summaries from various users.

Having said all this, its obviously up to the admins to decide what should happen. I don't think he's a "bad hearted" editor at all, don't get me wrong, but something should really be done about this matter. Way too much resilience/WP:GF has been shown, to (almost) absolutely no avail. Perhaps indeed a tutor (but this time, as suggested, one imposed on him) would be the key to success. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Time will tell Louis, and I hear you. This is last chance saloon, and I sincerely hope TheStrayDog understands that this is his last chance. I will be helpful and supportive to you and I will do my best. I would appreciate any support the community can give me, but I will have no hesitation in pulling the plug if there is no improvement in a short, to be specified time. I am talking a fortnight to pull TSD round. If not, I will have no hesitation in handing over to Dennis for closure. I think we can close this thread at this point. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support mentoring I'm totally behind this decision. I agree with Irondome that the community should step back and let TSD learn the ropes. I only proposed a block above because (1) I was not interested in doing the mentoring myself and (2) I didn't want to force it on anyone else. As long as there is a willing volunteer who seems capable, then have at it. I also agree with the "I sincerely hope TSD understands that this is his last chance" sentiment. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Wiki Abuse

Nothing to see here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Users User:331dot and User:Clubjustin have been harrasing me on my talkpage and reverting my edits. Hortonhearsawho (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC) You keep removing warnings. That's why we revert you. Clubjustin Talkosphere 13:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC) To be fair, they can remove warnings off of their page. It's current declined unblock notices that are not to be removed by a user on their talk page. (See WP:BLANKING) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I would hardly describe my actions as "harassment"; I have simply encouraged the user to discuss the dispute. I have reverted their edits, but the edits were removing seemingly valid information with little explanation. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Some diffs showing actual harassment are called for in an ANI-report. Providing none at all is not a good sign. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Technically, the OP is allowed remove warnings from their talk page. Technically, 331dot should not have reverted this removal. Technically, 331dot was in the wrong for templating them in a manner that implied they are not (that template is for people who remove others' comments on pages other than their own talk page). That said, calling this "abuse" and "harassment" is making a mountain out of a molehill, and if by "have been ... reverting my edits" what is being referred to is article reverts rather than the one instance of 331dot reverting on the OP's talk page, then it is definitely inappropriate to call that "abuse". I say close this thread as needless escalation. If there is a content dispute let it be worked out somewhere else. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC) @Hijiri88: I don't recall reverting a removal of Hortonhearsawho's user talk page content, nor did I warn them about doing so. I warned them about removing article content. 331dot (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)Technically it was Clubjustin that reverted the removal of the talk page warnings and Clubjustin that templated Hortonhearsawho for removing the warnings from their talk page. -- GB fan 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I am assuming good faith and hoping Clubjustin forgot about that to not warn them about removal of warnings. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Shit. Missed that. But that just means that the OP's saying that they both "have been harrasing me on my talkpage and reverting my edits" is more misleading than I thought. One of them reverted one of his edits in an inappropriate manner, the other misused a template once, and no bonafide harassment has taken place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Which of my edits was inappropriate, and why? If one was inappropriate, I would like to know for the future. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC) I don't see anything inappropriate from 331dot's part. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC) Yeah, I haven't caught up on the "you can remove warnings" part. Sorry on my part. But was OP reporting me to WP:AIV appropriate? Also, can I remove the warning that links to nowhere now? I imagine this will cause a bit of problems if we can't glance and know if they reached 4r warnings now. Clubjustin Talkosphere 14:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC) User is blocked, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime. -- ferret (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee‎‎

Extended content

I'm requesting an indefinie block from editing User:Springee‎‎ for several forms of Disruptive editing, including: Forum shopping [111] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee Starts RfC instead of letting it go Canvassing [112][113] Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process Refactoring others' talk page comments: [114][115][116] Gaming the system Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor. After a back-and-forth [117][118] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month. And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text. At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [119][120][121][122]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose. More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [123] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above) Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins. Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go? Bad-faith wikilawyering: At Talk:Chrysler, Springee argued that a proposed addition had to be rejected because the text had flaws, and would never be allowed to be fixed. Meaning, no RfC could ever support adding any text to Wikipedia because, Springee claims here, the addition could never be edited again. Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy. Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy: citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware Citing WP:NOTNEWS as reason to delete entire sections of articles because some of the content cites newspapers and magazines!? WP:NOTNEWS deals with creating new articles about news events, not deleting paragraphs describing events related to a topic merely because they cite news sources. Springee knows this, but has repeatedly made up new rules and new interpretations of policy as needed. Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet. A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch Removing a large addition for a minor error. [124][125][126] I can't go on; it's too much work for one person. I haven't even gotten to "Mischaracterizing other editors", "Borderlining", "Retribution" and "Playing victim". The number of blockable offenses goes on and on. Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times, and has accused others may times. Often the boomerang went one way or the other. Many of Springee's rivals were themselves violating rules, but what is the common denominator in this years-long record of conflict? The common denominator is stonewalling, bad faith, and gaming the system. Springee has been warned many times, has tried voluntary topic bans, interaction bans, 1RR sanctions, and has had every opportunity to become intimately familiar with what sorts of behavior are not allowed. This is never going to stop. A topic ban or temporary block are pointless. An indefinite block is necessary to stop this disruption. If you review Springee's previous AN/I cases, what will follow is his counterattack on me, in the form of a wall of text. This AN/I discussion will grow to thousands of words. Look at each of the past RfCs, and AN/I threads. They grow so large they're unreadable. What is the common denominator in all of them? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Several of your diffs have nothing to do with Springee and several of your claims of misconduct have no evidence. On the other hand, there is evidence of canvassing. I would not consider this refactoring, but it does appear to putting one's thumb on the scale. I think it is very unlikely that ANI will resolve this. If "Springee's history at AN/I goes back years. He has been accused of all these things many times,..." is true then I suggest you whittle this down to 10-15 clear, compelling, obvious instances of disruptive editing and request an Arbcom case at WP:RFAR. - MrX 12:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC) I demur on the CANVASS bit - neither Arthur Rubin nor I are predisposed in any way to do anything more than express our own fully independent opinions, and anyone who thinks they can count on us to support their opinions is apt to be disappointed. Collect (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Both of canvassed editors had previously expressed strong agreement with Springee's interpretation of WP:UNDUE. Predictably, both of you went on to say you supported Springee's interpretation of that policy in this case. You also share Springee's habit of nuking large blocks of content for one flaw, rather than fix it, tag it or removing only part. You don't acknowledge the existence of the WP:PRESERVE policy. Like Springee, you are relentless. Nobody has said you're not independent. The fact is, drawing you into any discussion means an ally for Springee. You proved it by doing exactly what the canvassing policy says not to do when canvassed. Arthur Rubin had the sense to stay out of it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Alas - you are so wrong as to make your charge ludicrous here. [127] shows my opinion, which is quite dissimilar from the impression you seek to give about it. Is the make and model number of the vehicle in each case of special and notable significance to the reader? If it has special significance, more than mere mention in sources, then it may be useful information. If not (that is, the make and model of the vehicle is of no special significance at all, and removal of the make and model would in no way harm readers) then it should not be included. Consider a mass murderer who left a "Brand X" soda can at a murder scene (that is - the brand of soda was noted, but of no significance to the crime or solution of the crime in any material way) would you expect to see a reference to "Brand X" in an article on that person? I suggest this be the actual basis for determination on a case by case basis, rather than setting an "all or none" rule here. does not seem to show any evidence of being a CANVASSed position at all, and I find your imputation that I nuked material for non-policy reasons to be absurd here. Kindly redact your imputation, as I find such stuff to be quite toxic to collegial editing. Collect (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Collect, here are 3 diffs of you doing so on Chrysler: [128][129][130]. Your deletions also contradicted the letter and the spirit of the recently closed RfC which was decided in favor of keeping the addition. You could have fixed any minor issues, but instead you deleted it all. Over and over. In the thread Talk:Chrysler#Removal of 1979 bailout, another editor said, "Bad delete. Collect, why would you delete this... These are hardly embattled opinions. You even deleted completely innocuous mentions of Simca, Rootes, and Barreiros. Seriously. Mr.choppers". Removing content this way is found under WP:STONEWALL, "Removing a large addition for a minor error". You restored uncited gross inaccuracies, which had been in the article since 2013, and claimed the reason for your revert was because the citations were not quite perfect enough. Talk about bad faith negotiating. I don't mean to make this about you, but there is overwhelming evidence that Springee chose you well when he canvassed you. He wanted somebody like-minded to help him win his RfC, because he will do anything to win. I could have hand-picked a dozen editors to "ask for advice" *wink* *wink* and those dozen hand-picked editors would proceed to post !votes favorable to me in any RfC. I could hand pick a dozen right now and they would come to this AN/I and post "support". It's easy. That's why canvassing is bad, and the AN/I record shows that Springee has litigated canvassing multiple times. No excuse for not knowing what he was doing. I don't want to make this about you, but that's the facts. Anybody can read the diffs for themselves and see. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Mr. X, I also have to insist that this is never OK. An editor may choose to comment on an article talk page, but that doesn't obligate them to be drawn in, against their will, to a larger debate on a WikiProject RfD, or AN/I or any other protracted debate. We must always respect both the content and the context of an editor's words, and not change them or move them unasked. When I objected, Springee, as always, was deaf to it and reverted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Edits like this and this stand out as problematic. I find it stunning that such large swaths of sourced, relevant content would be removed. I shudder to think that well-sourced information about millions of recalled vehicles would be swept from the article. I may be missing some context, but it looks like blatant whitewashing to me.- MrX 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) It's OK to think the article is better with out it. But when you go on removing it after an exhaustive debate that settled the question, we have disruptive editing. The pattern behind all these incidents is that Springee never stops gaming the system unless forced to do so.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC) MrX, I would suggest you need to review the Chrysler edits in context before deciding. That material was the subject of a long RfC and with quite a few editor's weighing in. If Dennis (or anyone else) felt the final edits were wrong they should have voiced concern at the time (or now on the Chrysler talk page). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Springee, I did. What I see is an article that goes into elaborate detail about the management team and marketing campaigns, but says almost nothing critical of the company or their products. The talk page seems to show you object to any content about recalls [131], which I assume relates to the July edit wars. I'm not sure if this is just an unpleasant content dispute, or editor misconduct, but only Arbcom would be able to unravel it in my opinion. Fyddlestix' comments seem on point.- MrX 20:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC) MrX, Thanks for looking into it. At a high level that was a dispute regarding WEIGHT and BALAS. Recalls do have a place in automotive articles but there is a limit. All the major car companies have many recalls each year. At some point we have to say we can't cover them all and that many are not notable (the common vernacular version, not NOTE) in context of companies that have been around for nearly a century. There is an archived Automotive project page that talks about which recalls should be covered with respect to car models but not at the higher level manufacture articles. I would also note that the RfC Dennis referenced only covered quality/reliability material not recalls. Recalls were discussed separately. More importantly, if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then. Instead he is using this as an excuse to attack me with accusations of bad faith now. The issue now is basically a non-issue except for Dennis trying to make a mountain out of his mole hill. In this case the issue is Dennis starting off with an assumption of bad faith and going from there. Please look at this example[[132]]. Dennis's first post in the RfC was mostly an attack on me. How does that help anything? Consider the penalty Dennis is demanding? Indef block? Keep that in mind when reading Dennis's claims. When/if I get time this evening I will try to point by point reply to the accusations. (posted from my phone, please forgive swypos) Springee (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Oh jeez, not this again. Springee has a long history of getting into intractable disputes with a specific editor, and just not being able to compromise or let go. Usually the conflict goes on for weeks (if not months), spilling across multiple noticeboards, talk pages, and articles, and creating a giant time-suck for editors who have much better things to do. This is not Springee's first rodeo at ANI, and I've lost count of the number of times he has been brought here (and brought others here) over similar conflicts. Some examples: [133][134][135]. There are a number of 3RR and AE threads that show a history of problematic behavior as well: [136][137][138] Previous long-running conflicts with HughD and Scoobydunk were particularly disruptive, I outlined some of the most problematic behavior in their interactions with HughD here. Not saying an indef is warranted (seems overly harsh, doesn't it?) or that there might not be problematic editing on both sides (this was certainly the case in the dispute with HughD, no idea if that's the case in the current dispute) but this is an editor who definitely has problems editing collaboratively, and has been at the center of a whole lot of disruption. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Fyddlestix, I would ask that you review the recent interactions related to the recent RfC[[139]] and understand this issue before dragging out old issues. Please look at the way Dennis attacked me with accusations of bad faith almost from the word go[[140]]. Please also review the conversation that followed before assuming this is an issue with me vs Dennis (who also has black marks on his record). Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Like I said, I'm not claiming that Dennis is squeaky clean - I don't know if he is or not. But I'm not sure that it matters: conflicts like these are always a two-way street, and this is the third time I've seen you get involved in a prolonged feud like this. In fact, looking at your edit history and your edit count, those three feuds seems to make up the vast majority of your edit history. This is not good. You should have learned long ago that wikipedia is not a battleground, and how to de-escalate rather than prolong these kinds of disagreements. We're here to build an encyclopedia not get embroiled in interminable pissing contests, and people whose primary activity on the wikipedia seems to consist of such contests should not be surprised if/when the community loses patience with them. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you for fixing my format wrote above. I'm not really sure we have a big conflict here. Yes, I guess I could have just walked away the moment Dennis accused me of bad faith. Then again he could have done the same when he, wrongly, felt I was working on bad faith. Beyond that what do we have here? This isn't some sort of long running feud. I disagreed with an edit and other editors and I started the usual discussion process. It certainly appears that we have exactly that other than the accusations of bad faith from Dennis. When it was clear that we had about 3:3 related to the issue and when Dennis made it clear any action of mine would be seen as bad faith I asked for help and started the RfC. Again I ask, what do you think I did wrong here? (posted from phone, sorry for any swypos) Springee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC) "...if Dennis was unhappy then why not address it then", Springee lied. I did address it then. Anyone can see that. I called you on it repeatedly. You're lying right now in the face if diffs that anyone can see show you are lying. You are "playing victim" when you wail about not assuming good faith. Per AGF: "editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such." I caught you stonewalling and gaming the system once, and warned you. Second time around, I caught you repeating the same stonewalling and gaming the system. I called you on it. You'd have me play the fool. This is one of your favorite tactics. Every time you get caught with these tricks and schemes, votestacking, canvassing, wikilawyering, you play the AGF card. This is why I don't think a temporary block or a topic ban is sufficient. This is a deeply ingrained pattern of behavior that you couldn't quit if you wanted to. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Support block or topic ban on automobile-related articles. The amount of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and gaming the system shown here was painful to read.v74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Are you another sock of the blocked KochTruth IP editor? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) I disagree with your actions, so I must be a sock! So much for AGF. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Reply from Springee: I don't currently have time for a point by point refutation of the accusations made by Dennis but I strongly disagree with the accusations he has made. Dennis seems to have read all my actions in the worst light ever since throwing down an accusation of bad faith after I realized the material we were discussing was outside of the scope of the F-650 article (the F-700 in question was a 1993 truck, the article covers the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar). Because I realized this issue after we were already in discussion (note that no one else noticed this sooner), I was accused of bad faith negotiations [[141]]. I was concerned about the nasty accusations and asked Arthur Rubin for suggestions (unrelated to asking about the content dispute) [[142]]. I have worked very hard to avoid counter accusations of bad faith or personal attacks. Please note Dennis's first post on the RfC was as much an attack on me as anything [[143]]. I'm very frustrated that Dennis isn't willing to discuss these issues or offer any sort of benefit of the doubt [[144]], [[145]]. Dennis has a number of errors in his presentation of the facts. Please note that the RfC was started on Sept 9th. Many of his claims that I was ignoring RfC results predate the RfC! He also seems to confuse the limited conversations that occurred on the article talk pages for the longer discussion (involving all the same editors) on the Automotive Project page. The Chrysler material Dennis refers to was extensively discussed by a large number of editors. I think he is grossly misrepresenting things, including claiming the material that was the subject of the RfC wasn't added to the article (it was). Unfortunately something Dennis did get right is the wall of text from Springee. He has posted so many accusations and to answer each with context would require a lot of text. One final note, despite Dennis's claims that I was misreading WEIGHT and other policies/guidelines etc the current RfC favors removing the material in question by something like 15:5. Dennis is one of the five. Is this an editor issue with me or an attempt by Dennis to use an ANI to block an editor he doesn't agree with? Springee (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Springee just wrote 400 words defending his behavior on the grounds that I should have given him the benefit of the doubt, assumed good faith, read his actions in a positive light, blah blah blah. Poor Springee. In the exact same edit, just above, literally separated by a single line break, he accused IP 74.70.146.1 of being a sock of one of his old enemies. Of which he seems to have many. Springee, is there any way for you to grasp just how much bad faith is expressed right here in this one edit? It's like some kind of performance art, seeing how far you can flout policy before you get blocked for it. Bravo, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Well well well. If our policies mean anything, it's high time for admin action. AGF is not a suicide pact; the central issue is a turd of well-documented: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#IDHT, WP:EW, WP:STONEWALL violations, and there's no reason to WP:IAR (i.e. ignore the policy violations) when the policy violations are in service of a currently successful effort at keeping text/info including this (!) out of the Chrysler article: National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) levied a $150 million fine on Chrysler for failing to complete 23 safety recalls on more than 11 million vehicles, the largest fine ever imposed by the NHTSA at the time.! Bravo, User:Dennis Bratland for bringing this here as this is exactly what ANI is for. Concur with 74.70.146.1, User:Fyddlestix, User:MrX and User:Dennis Bratland regarding need for a block, battleground behavior, blatant whitewashing and disruptive editing. Springee claims below, "I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically." The truth is- the complaint was quoted selectively. --166.216.158.165 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Detailed reply I've quoted the original complaint so I can reply more methodically. Please note there are some fundamental issues with this complaint. Dennis is focused on edits and discussions surrounding a current and RfC and one from several months back. Why is he only complaining the old one now? If he is going to complain about that RfC then he should notify the involved editors so they can give their views. We have already seen that Collet doesn't agree with some of Dennis's claims. The recent RfC stems from two recent additions to the Ford F-650 article (Aug 28th [[146]]) and and the Chevy Caprice article (Sept 7th [[147]]). An initial discussion was posted on the F-650 talk page on the 29th after I removed the text noting "The use in a crime isn't notable in an article about the vehicle" [[148]]. The original editor, CuriousMind01, posted a question about the removal on the talk page and I suggested bringing it up on the Automobile Project page which was done on Sept 3rd [[149]]. Dennis was the first to reply and in all honesty I thought we were in agreement [[150]] though I was clearly mistaken [[151]]. At this point Dennis focuses on my use of the word "notable" to remove the text in question [[152]]. I apologize noting I was not referring to the WP:NOTE but just a common use of the word [[153]]. The first accusation of bad faith followed with an accusation of STONEWALLING [[154]]. Note at this point the discussion was somewhat stalled and consensus seemed to be 2:2. At this point I realized (no one else had noticed) that the F-650 article is only about the 2000 and later trucks developed with Navistar and thus doesn't cover the older 1993 F-700 that was used in the bombing. Thus I argue that in addition to any other issue related to WEIGHT etc the material simply doesn't relate to the F-650 article. I would have thought that would be enough to justify removal. I was wrong... and at that point Dennis really started with the accusations of bad faith [[155]], [[156]]. I see NOTHING in my talk page actions at this point that could be seen as problematic and I feel nothing that would deserve the hostile replies Dennis was adding to the talk page. As of Sept 6th consensus was 3:2 against. On the 7th another editor joined the conversation in support of inclusion and then added very similar content to the Chevy Caprice article. I reverted the addition, Dennis reverted me. At that this point it was becoming clear that this was something that was not going to be solved through a normal back and forth given the accusations of bad faith Dennis was aiming at me and his insistence that WEIGHT and BALAS really only apply to balancing of opinions, not relative weight given to material within (or not within) an article (example from Sept 5th [[157]]). I ask Arthur and Collet what might be the best approach for this issue since we are now talking about two articles and NPOV wasn't the only policy mentioned hence it might be outside the scope of NPOVN. To that end I started an RFC on Sept 9th. The RFC was posted on the two car pages, at NPOVN, and "Economy, trade, and companies" and "Maths, science, and technology". I'm sorry that was a long backdrop but I want to make it clear that this was and largely still is a content dispute going through the usual channels. From the original complaint: *WP:FORUMSHOP [158] Discussion of addition began on August 30, was 3 to 1 against Springee}} Starts RfC instead of letting it go Not clear when it was ever 3:1 against. Additionally, the primary discussion was ALWAYS on the Automobile Project page. It isn't forum shopping to stick with the results of the main discussion, especially since Dennis was aware of that discussion. The RfC wasn't forum shopping either. It came about because we were 3:3. *Canvassing [159][160] Springee was accused of canvassing in December 2005 and not blocked for canvassing, but was criticized for at least pushing the boundaries, and should have learned what this policy says. Also received warnings for BLUDGEONing process Yes, I was told to be careful about canvassing. I was careful and made sure my questions were neutral and focused only on how and where to answer the question. Not sure where the bludgeon comment comes from. A keyword search of the link turned up nothing. *Refactoring others' talk page comments: [161][162][163] The first was out of frustration but I do think it was deceptive that Dennis didn't make it clear that he was the one making the claim. The other two (the original and the restoration because Dennis refactored my post! [[164]]) are quoting two editors who replied to the RfCs posted at the article page. Note that I pinged the editors, made it clear these were quotes and where they came from. *Gaming the system Several times during the March RfC at Talk:Chrysler, Springee tried to declare the discussion over, in his favor. After a back-and-forth [165][166] over whether an RfC should be kept open, a Request for Closure was made. As more participants trickled into the discussion, the weight was shifting against Springee. Springee "innocently" changed the talk archive settings from 6 months to 1 month. And it works like a charm. Instead of waiting for the Request for Closure to end the discussion, Springee has enlisted a bot to quash it. Dionysodorus asks to delist it, since a bot archived it. After pointing out the ploy Springee had used here, I unarchived the discussion and subsequently it was closed, in favor of keeping the proposed text. At last, RfC closed after 3 month, the result is "keep" the addition. Was it added? [167][168][169][170]. Nope. It's as if the RfC never happened (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Heads, Springee wins, tails you lose. Dennis is wrong in claiming the RfC material was never added. The RfC neever covered recalls (discussed separately) and if Dennis felt the material that was added was not sufficient then he or any of the many other editors involvedat the time could have added it. Again, why bring this up months later?Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) **More recently, at Talk:Ford F-650 two editors disagree with Springee, and none agree, he declares the discussion over, and that he shall get his way [171] because there is "no consensus" for the edits the first two editors wanted. When a third editor disagrees, and none support, there is still "no consensus". Instead RfC is started (above) Simply not true. As I said before the primary discussion was always on the project page and at the time of Dennis's claimed "no one agreed with Springee" the actual count was 3:3 [[172]]. **Again Behaving as if the RFC has already been decided in his favor, Springee proceeds to delete similar material from another article, saying that the content must be removed because there is an RfC taking place. Heads, Springee gets his way, tails, Springee wins. The editor who added the Caprice material added it after joining the F-650 discussion (it was 3:2 against inclusion just before he joined). Note no RfC was taking place at this time. Dennis seems to be inventing facts here. **Counting 3 !votes to 2 in his favor after the RfC has only run a few days, Springee is again ready to declare that he gets his way, for the time being. When it's 2:1 against him, he wins. When it's 3:1 against him, he wins. When he finally finds a venues he likes, it's 3:2 in his favor, so of course, he wins. Hey, where'd that third !vote go? There was no RfC at this time! The RfC was 2 days away. The count was based on the current project page discussion. **Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy: essentially entire arguments related to Chrysler recalls, and Ford truck, consist of strictly applying only the due weight portions of the NPOV policy, while choosing not to apply the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Achieving neutrality section at all, let alone taking into account Editing policy. Not sure how I would argue against a vague accusation like that. Currently the RfC is about 15:5 against inclusion and many editors have cited the same policies as me. **Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy: citing "notability" to delete content after having been made aware of WP:N#NCONTENT multiple times. Citing WP:TRIVIA to delete content after having been made aware that TRIVIA is about section layout, not content policy. Violating WP:CANTFIX and WP:PRESERVE ad infinitum after having been made aware This is another bad faith argument on Dennis's part. When I first removed the text from the F-650 article I said it wasn't notable in context of the article. I didn't mean WP:NOTE and said as much when Dennis brought it up. What can I say when an editor tires to accuse me of meaning WP:NOTE (and makes the accusation repeatedly) when I clearly state I didn't mean NOTE and, like many editors, used notable when I should have said weight etc. **Stonewalling or filibustering -- too many diffs to collect. Any of these discussions shows Springee replying to every single comment, repeating his arguments over and over. Then how can I tell if the claim is legit. **Bad-faith negotiating: moving the goal posts by adding new criteria to meet. There is no Wiki rule that I'm aware of that says we can't suggest new arguments when previous ones fail to convince. **A new red herring this belongs on some other article -- EXCEPT nope, if you did add it to some other article, Springee would oppose it for reasons previously given. A bait and switch I've addressed this BS before. I think my replies on the project talk page were clear. I would point out that Dennis seems to have a history of confrontation with editors who disagree with him. Dennis has taken a hostile approach to other users as well [[173]], [[174]], [[175]]. This should be a simple content dispute that was moved to an RfC but for a series of accusations of bad faith starting with Dennis. I'm sure I could have handled things better (not nibbled at the bait a few times) but his telling grossly distorts the events. (Sorry for typos, it's late) Springee (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC) * I'm restoring this from the archive. Hopefully we can have a resolution. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Apparently, nobody cares. So this will get archived again shortly. 68.193.51.117 (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC) FYI, altho I agree with your sentiment, by posting to the discussion you delayed its archiving by a day. John from Idegon (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC) I would really like a response. Today Springee goes on playing his games, pretending he doesn't know that Wikipedia is not a Democracy and we determine outcomes by Consensus, not voting. He declares disputes "over" at will, whenever he feels like it's to his advantage. At Talk:Ford F-650, things weren't going his way, so he jumped over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and started an RfC to see if he could get a different outcome. Now he claims the outcome is decided and he wonders why anyone would want his RfC to be formally closed? Why start a formal RfC if you don't want it to be formally closed? It's more of the same gaming the system. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Now, a sudden interest in the 2014 Oso mudslide! Who knew Springee edited articles about disasters in small towns in the state of Washington? Obviously, Springee is tracking my edits and hounding me now. See WP:HOUND "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. ". Springee has history of tracking others' edit history in order to harass them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Today Springee is pretending that the RfC over Talk:Ford F-650 "not contentious". A discussion that has spread to 8+ threads and counting, spawned an RfC and an ANI thread, is "not contentious". And further, Springee thinks "consensus is obvious". When has Springee ever not thought consensus is obvious? Always in his favor, naturally. More gaming the system, bad faith. RE: Wikihounding, Here is Springee's bread-and-butter Wikilawyering. All Wikipedia is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so why wouldn't he casually pick through 7 bot notices on somebody else's talk page and choose one or two where he could follow one of his personal rivals? And never leave out "I would suggest you read WP:AGF". Always playing the victim, always using AGF as a shield to cover any level of disruptive editing. Please indef block Springee so this can end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC) Nope. Deliberately unarchiving discussions where your request to indef an editor might easily boomerang. [176] was a fairly poor idea. Collect (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC) I'm surprised it took this long for the old reliable boomerang threat to rear its ugly head. One of the ways Springee has been so successful in his long term abuse is playing the victim and turning any complaints about his disruptive editing against the accuser. Classic Wikilawyering. Speaking of boomerang, your own behavior is not exactly something to be proud of. See above. I welcome further administrator attention in this case. All of the uninvolved editors (see above) who have taken the time to look a the diffs have seen that these blockable offenses are real. Springee's best hope is to bludgeon the process to the point where nobody wants to take the time to read all this crap. Who can blame them? Dealing with people like Springee is a time-consuming, thankless task. He uses that to his advantage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I'm hatting the above discussion, so that this is visible but users can still review the above. I've seen very little admin (or uninvolved user) participation in this extremely lengthy and nasty thread. The involved users' interactions have devolved into straight-up name-calling: [177] and what does appear to be hounding [178]. So I'm proposing an indefinite two-way interaction ban between Dennis Bratland and Springee because frankly, the community doesn't appear to have the time or the patience to unravel what happens when the two of you interact. I'm requesting that if either of you comment, you make only a single brief statement. I think you've each said quite enough above. agtx 03:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the devolution to name calling but protest the claim of hounding. CuriousMind01 and I have been discussing a joint question for the NPOVN (Discussions here [[179]] and here [[180]]). The general topic (the core of the F-650 RfC) is if A has weight in article B does B automatically have weight in article A? On CM's talk page, under my comments, are several RfC links two of which deal with that question (Mini-14 and Oso Mudslide). Having weighted in on several of these type questions (Sig MCX, Aug 16th [[181]], Mini-14 (starting on Sept 19th) [[182]], and the RfC discussed above) the Oso RfC caught my eye for the same reasons. My Oso comment was not directed at Dennis or reference his reasons arguments[[183]]. This is only one of perhaps 20 differnent articles Dennis has edited in the last few days? Not following or hounding. I would be quite happy if Dennis would drop the accusations of bad faith etc and we can leave one another alone. That said, I don't want to be accused of violating an IB for acting on the results of the RfC I started above [[184]]. I don't see an IB as needed. If problems persist after the RfC closes then bring on the ban. Springee (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't support an interaction ban. It lets Springee off free, and silences one of the few who care enough to pay attention to his pattern of behavior. There's no doubt that unraveling this is time consuming. But I maintain somebody has to step up and read through all of these threads. I'd like to know what's going to happen when Springee gets sent on his merry way to start more of these protracted disputes, and somebody else gets fed up, and brings the same complaints back here to AN/I. What will be said to them? "Your diffs aren't formatted nicely enough. Too long. Don't want to read." Who benefits from me being unable to say a word? I know the community doesn't want to devote time this kind of thing, but an interaction ban only pushes the necessary homework down the road onto somebody else, and allows Springee to bully more editors unopposed. It won't stop until somebody rolls up their sleeves and slogs through the muck.

Id' like to hear what User:Fyddlestix and User:MrX say about this interaction ban, and I wish the IP(s) would create accounts to be taken more seriously. Springee continues to play innocent with the obvious hounding. He's incorrigible.

I prefer an admin gives this the attention it deserves and take action. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Bratland appears to have a single aim, and used many thousands of words to promote it. An "interaction ban", judging from Bratland's post above is not the answer. The proper ban should be one of Bratland from initiating any complaints about Springee, or of Springee initiating complaints about Bratland on any noticeboard. In the case at hand, it is clear who is the aggressor, alas. And keep the posts down to a reasonable length, please. I trust this is an evenhanded response, but otherwise I fear that it is Bratland who is "not here" to work collegially. Collect (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It amazes me. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize the knowledge available on any given subject in reliable sources, right? It is no accident that succinct and summarize begin with the same two letters. Why is it when someone feels the need to complain here that compels them to write the equivalent of War and Peace? Dennis Bratland, you should have never resurrected this. The reason nothing ever gets done about your ongoing battle is you can't keep your hands off your keyboard. It doesn't take 5000 characters to register a complaint. You can do it in under 500 complete with diffs. You don't need to respond to everything said. Say your piece, shut up and let the community debate. This is especially important when the person you are complaining about also has an affinity for opuses.

To that end, since neither of these editors can get along and neither can form a complaint we can actually deal with here, I suggest that they be restricted to complaining straight to ArbCom. There, they will be forced to keep it under 500 characters, and restricted from sniping at each other during the process. A warning to both tho....The outcome for you both will not be to your liking. My suggestion would be you both leave the wonderful world of automobiles alone for a while. Find something else to work on. I can direct you to literally hundreds of school articles that would love some attention. John from Idegon (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This. - MrX 12:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm ok with this too. Same outcome as far as the community is concerned. We're simply not interested. agtx 15:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I don't favour iBans. If an editor is bad enough, just a simple ban. An iBan just shouldn't be necessary for two competent, good faith editors, whom both of these are.

I've had problems with both of these editors in the past, but I'm happy that they're both basically well-meaning. It should be enough for them to work out their own personal grudges, or simply to sit on their hands and edit quietly despite. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible hard-right propaganda on a user page

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

---

The following discussion is closed. 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 deeply confused about the user page User:Zaostao. Why would he display "Die Partei" by Arno Breker on full scale? Does this amount to hard-right propaganda? I should add that such may be illegal in Germany. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mathmensch: But not in ?California, which is really all that matters. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him? Deli nk (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Its a picture of a statue. It is hardly 'propaganda'. And even with Germany's restrictions on nazi imagery, I highly doubt they will be able to successfully prosecute someone for having a photo *absent any comment* of a statue. Given the framing, you would have to know what the statue is to be offended by it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mathmensch, what is the outcome you're looking for here? Do you think that the image, as displayed, violates Wikipedia:User pages? A Train^talk 10:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It may well violate that policy. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I continue to wonder about why we allow editors to display things like User:UBX/flat earth on their user pages, honestly. I mean, Wikipedians can believe whatever they want, but user pages are supposed to be about us as Wikipedia editors, and having userboxes that specify that we hold to views that have no place in Wikipedia articles is hardly useful. Anyway, the bible verse named and preceded by a hyphen, as though it was meant to quote the verse but the words were cut for some reason, reads in the NRSV: Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here." The passage appears to be John's characteristic de-apocalypticizing of Jesus's message, but also includes John's characteristic antisemitism where Jesus's enemies are "the Jews". This edit is also pretty disturbing. All in all, the user page really looks like that of someone who is WP:NOTHERE. I haven't actually looked at their edits, mind you; I say they should be strongly encouraged to remove potentially offensive material, and if they refuse then we should start asking why. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way? Blackmane (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute, or which is likely to give widespread offense The Nazi artwork would itself be problematic enough, but its prominence on the page makes it pretty difficult not to interpret the stuff about the antisemitic gospel reference and Wagner in that light. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(Yes, I cut off the example of pro-pedophilia advocacy. While that example is probably even more likely to bring the project into disrepute in most countries than sympathy with the Nazi Party, the latter is also up there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC))

The user page does appear to carry at least three antisemitic dog whistles.

• File:ArnoBrekerDiePartei.jpg is a prominently-displayed image (the only image on the user page) of a part of a sculpture by Arno Breker. The image caption in our article reads: "Die Partei, Breker's statue representing the spirit of the Nazi Party that flanked one side of the carriage entrance to Albert Speer's new Reich Chancellery." This is the only image on the user's page.
• The notation "—John 18:36" appears right next to Die Partei on Zoaostao's page. That Bible verse reads: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place." This is the only body text on the user's page.
• The userbox User:Gduwen/USBX-Wagner ("This user enjoys Richard Wagner's music") is problematic in context, as Wagner is often regarded as having incorporated racist and antisemitic themes into his writings and works. In the context of this discussion, the Nazis (especially and including Hitler) made regular and enthusiastic use of the most antisemitic portions of Wagner's work. Of nine userboxes, this is the only userbox relating to music or culture.

Any single one of those elements by itself might represent an independent and innocent interest in sculpture, religion, or music. All three together (particularly as the only references to sculpture, religion, or music on the page, and the only image and text on the page) are a deliberate and obvious signal. Either the user is trolling, or the user is an antisemite. Either way, this isn't acceptable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your inferences may be correct, but I think if you have to go to those lengths to explain its meaning, it can hardly be characterized as propaganda. Looking at the user's edits, I think WP:NOTHERE may apply though, as noted above. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Where there is smoke there is fire—unless there is an absence of fire. There are red flags for misuse of the User page. But if the User denies all references to "hard-right propaganda" we should assume good faith. Bus stop (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the page at present is incredibly offensive to anyone who gets the references being made, particularly (I must assume) Jews. Whether it is meant as propaganda or as something as "innocent" as trolling or (much less likely) just an unfortunate coincidence is somewhat beside the point. If they deny any antisemitic or fascistic intent, they should be asked (politely!) to remove the offensive material (either the image or the Bible verse or both) and to provide some explanation of what they actually meant. If no explanation is forthcoming, then either they should be blocked, or their edits monitored very closely going forward. AGF means we shouldn't block him outright for what is almost certainly an antisemitic fascist userpage because of the very slight possibility that it is all just an unfortunate coincidence; it doesn't mean we should let him maintain the unfortunate coincidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't "have to" go to such lengths. The 'meaning' of each of those references is painfully obvious to anyone with a whit of familiarity with antisemitic hate propaganda. I explained in detail because there will always be a few editors who are lucky enough to be naive to the meaning of these symbols.

Incidentally, he added the Die Partie image and the Wagner userbox at the same time, in the same edit that used them to replace the previous text of his userpage, "Death to traitors." That phrase comes from Thomas Mair, the neo-Nazi who is currently awaiting trial for the murder of British MP Jo Cox.

Can we please stop sweeping this stuff under the rug of "it could be accidental" now? Wikipedia is really bad at this sort of thing, and I feel icky every time we decide to protect the comfort of subtle (sort of) neo-Nazis at the expense of the rest of the project's editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• But Ed, "if you have to go to those lengths to explain its meaning" is what Dog whistle politics means. Besides, even I understand the userpage message at first glance; I think it quite jumps out. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the three elements in combination are highly offensive, especially the way the statue image and the bible verse are placed together. I have asked the user to remove them (not the Wagner userbox, though), as an appropriate first step. Bishonen | talk 14:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

• If the page had swastikas, 1488 references or other Nazi imagery, I would agree that the page and the editor both need to go. As it is, though, we have a statue, an interest in a composer, and a Bible verse. None of these things are evil, separately or together. Thematic issues aside, Wagner was a brilliant composer who had a profound impact on the music world that echoes even today as having influenced early heavy metal. And we certainly don't block people for being openly Christian. The combination of these things could, if you turn your head sideways and squint, be considered offensive to some, but that would seem to fall well short of the "widespread offense" standard cited above. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Every damn time. Every damn time. Wikipedia shelters the subtle, dog-whistle haters. It's okay to have hate speech on your userpage as long as only the targets (and your fellow neo-Nazis) recognize it.

  Oh, and he's got a 1488 reference in his fucking edit summaries, if you really need it, @The Wordsmith:. The four consecutive edits to his user page between 15 June and 26 July have the edit summaries Replaced content with '1.', 4. 8. 8.. It turns out that unless you actually cover your userpage in swastikas Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck. As long as it's possible to pretend that the antisemitic and neo-nazi content might be a terrible accident, we're going to sit on our goddamn thumbs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  Hmmm, I hadn't seen that. That may be a different story, then. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith: Really? "may be"? I found exactly the neo-Nazi marker you specifically asked for, and it's still just a "may be"? How much effort do you want to expend to protect a neo-Nazi? Surely this neo-Nazi anti-semite isn't subtle enough even for you to tolerate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The Wordsmith makes a good point, but this is still most likely pro-nazi material. If the user only had the Bible verse and the Wagner userbox, that wouldn't seem to be an issue. The statue image combined with those things, however, makes the userpage look like it could be antisemtic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: The point is that if we have to spend all this time analyzing them, separately and in combination, to find antisemitism then it probably doesn't meed the "widespread offense" standard. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: Its true. Jews are only about 0.2% of the global population, so that's hardly "widespread offense". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith:Just because something's not glaringly obvious doesn't mean that it should be kept. @TenOfAllTrades: It's still a good amount of people. We shouldn't keep racist material just because it's not offensive to a massive group of people. Also, 14.5 million people isn't exactly small. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• User page deleted, editor blocked indef. Thanks, ToaT, I was unaware of some of the references, but together they make an irrefutable case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk about a scary fucking thread. We have several people who are trying to establish an upper limit of obvious dog whistles. A Nazi statue and a Bible verse that, without context, is obviously antisemitic? Okay. But "1488" is going too far. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• Support indefinite block For all the obvious reasons given by colleagues above. Not hugely subtle coded Anti-semitism on a user page does it for me. Irondome (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block. The initial evidence was open to interpretation, but the 1488 reference removes all reasonable doubt as to their intentions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• I see no disruption from the user. We don't (or at least shouldn't) block people for political opinions. POV-pushers and people with loathsome political views are a dime a dozen on Wikipedia. However, I see we are already in moral panic mode, so I am not optimistic. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Nazi, anti-semitic bullshit is a "political opinion" now? I will try to remember you said that, so if I see your name attached to any other opinions in the future I can give them very little weight as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, pro-Nazi opinions are political opinions. I couldn't care less about what you think of me. In the meantime, do tell us what disruption was caused and what was the need for a block without even allowing the user to respond? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Being pro-Nazi necessitates being anti- many things, which falls afoul of Wikipedia's civility policy. clpo13_(talk) 19:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What things do you mean and how exactly was the civility policy violated? Indeed, I see nothing at all in the discussion above about civility. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Good block Smash the fash, as we say around these parts. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Fully endorse block, good judgment displayed by Floq here (as usual). The "1-4-8-8" edits alone are quite enough to make this a clear case of neonazi propaganda – and in light of these, the content edits elsewhere, focussing as they do on the apologetics of various far-right political movements and figures, no longer look that harmless either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block Yeah, this is clearly the right call. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Guidance at Wikipedia:User pages seems fairly clear that the preferred course of action in the case of offensive user page content is to request the user remove it, or to remove it immediately in extreme cases, which this may be. A request does seem to have been made to remove the content, but the user appears to have been offline for a period of about 13 hours, and had no edits between the ANI notification and the block. Their second action after returning was to say that they would leave their user page blank, so I'm not really seeing any preventative effect here. If the core issue is the userpage content, the issue seems to be resolved. TimothyJosephWood 19:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Endorse block -- plenty of disruption from the user at Jared Taylor (a white supremacist), for which the editor in question was blocked at least once. The disruption extend to the Talk page; see for example this six-part thread: Talk:Jared Taylor#Journalist. A community ban may be appropriate given the evidence presented at this ANI thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If there was disruption on Jared Taylor why wasn't it brought up in the discussion above? This smacks of "verdict first, trial later" to me. Also, why weren't alternate methods, like topic-bans from far-right politics (after sufficient evidence is presented of course) considered? I should mention that this editor has a GA Edmund Kemper to their credit, which doesn't have anything to do with far-right politics which I can see (it wouldn't matter even if it had). So WP:NOTHERE clearly does not apply. Perhaps people might want to lower their pitchforks to see how ridiculous this block is. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For what purpose, do you imagine, an editor would hide the Nazi code-word "1488" in their edit summaries and add plausibly deniable racist-right dog-whistles to their userpage? Zaostao is not blocked for what they believe but for covertly signalling those beliefs to the like-minded to solicit their support. This is far from the first such incident on Wikipedia and it's common elsewhere across the internet; the purpose is always the same and pursuing that purpose on Wikipedia gets you blocked. CIreland (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, if we could use a topic-ban on a blatantly neo-Nazi editor to guide him into increased work (as suggested above) on articles like Edmund Kemper ("American serial killer, necrophile and cannibal"), I don't envision anything going wrong. EEng 21:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Endorse block wholeheartedly, per K.e.coffman. Neutrality^talk 21:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• endorse block fwiw i was interacting with this editor at Alt-right and the interaction was definitely off; not so horrible to bring here but weirdly unconstructive and dank. not surprised by the white supremacist signalling on their userpage. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 user "Sachin sharma bhopali"

• Sachin sharma bhopali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could any admin deal with this disruption/vandalism-only account and his sock IPs? Feel free to take a look at the baseless/unsourced/unreasoned edits constantly made, and the same constant bogus edit summaries added on top of that, to every edit ("Yes"). He has been blocked not that long ago for the same reason. Lastly, he has been abusing these two IP ranges as well to rack up some pretty nice IP socking repertoire, as all these IPs are marked by the same type of edits, the same target articles, the same geolocation, and by the usage of the very same weird edit summary the entire time ("Yes"), all in a completely similar fashion to his account;

• 27.97.66.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.75.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 106.79.239.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.44.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 106.79.229.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.77.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.73.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.152.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.235.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 27.97.47.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Pinging 220 of Borg and Kansas Bear as well, for they have encountered the same matter and/or aspects of the matter before as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:SwisterTwister's continued AFD disruption

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

---

SwisterTwister (ST) is a user whose disruptive behaviour has been brought to this board quite recently. The previous ANI discussions about ST's behaviour discussed his unilateral "banning" of other editors from his talk page and his careless and disruptive behaviour at AFD, where he was nominating and !voting on scores of articles with terse, cookie-cutter reasoning. ST had become one of those fixtures at AFD that closing admins start to tune out as white noise. In regards to the latter, ST has been advised to start elaborating on his reasoning to turn his !votes into actual arguments.

In the past few weeks, SwisterTwister has taken this advice with gusto, to the point that he is now being disruptive at AFD in a whole new way. ST now provides enormous, unformatted walls of text in AFD nominations, PRODs (what he calls his "extensive PRODS", as though this were a virtue), and in discussions. These are, by and large, not helpful or collaborative -- they are Wikipedia policy word salad that resemble the output of a Markov bot.

• Here is ST's AFD nomination for the Squarespace article, which is about 250 words packed into three sentences and makes on the most tenuous sense. Most of ST's recent participation in AFD is like this.
• When a fellow editor makes a keep argument in an AFD that ST is participating in, ST tends to drop several kilobytes of word salad in response. There are many, many more examples, and there's no need to take my word for it. If everyone who participated at AFD worked like this, AFD closes would take three hours apiece.
• SwisterTwister is almost certainly a native speaker of English, as his user page and contributions that predate this new "verbose" mode indicate.

When I made a note on ST's talk page asking about his behaviour, he simply blanked it and curtly dismissed me in his edit summary -- something I didn't notice until it was pointed out to me by another editor. Everyone's entitled to blank their talk pages, of course, but this is plainly not ideal for collaboration. AFD is (theoretically) one of the most collaborative spaces in the project. We're supposed to make persuasive arguments and change each other's minds and come to a consensus. SwisterTwister is not changing minds, he's alienating people. He's not making persuasive arguments, he's just bludgeoning. He's not even an effective force at AFD, as MelanieN pointed out at one of the previous ANI discussions of SwisterTwister, less than 60% of his AFD nominations are actually deleted.

With this new mode of verbose and obtuse commentary, and his continued brusque manner of interacting with other editors, I think it's pretty clear that SwisterTwister is no longer a net contributor to deletion discussions and is just creating unnecessary work for closing admins and other editors. I propose a topic ban from deletion discussions. A Train^talk 08:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose- Ugh, this again? First ST gets kicked in the teeth for making terse and cryptic comments on AfDs; he stops grunting and starts explaining himself better; now he's getting kicked in the teeth for allegedly being too long-winded. This continued whinge campaign is actually about ST being resented for being a prolific, primarily deletionist, editor at AfD. We do not treat people who mostly vote keep the same way- I can think of several prominent inclusionists who make short and incomprehensible votes all the time, and others who habitually hog huge amounts of screen real estate with long-winded ranting and extensive use of block quotes, and none of them ever change their behaviour like ST has, but somehow it's only a problem when he does it. WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER continues to apply. Reyk _YO! 08:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The long block quotes that have started showing up in recent weeks are also bad, but they're besides the point in the matter of SwisterTwister's behaviour, and it's definitely not because he's a "deletionist". If you run my AfD stats you'll see that the vast majority of my !votes are votes to delete. Most users were in favour of a deletion topic ban last time, just shy of a rough consensus, so this isn't some personal vendetta. I have nothing against the guy, I just shudder when I think of closing AFDs that he's participated in.

Also, if you think he's explaining himself "better", you haven't looked at any of the diffs I've provided. A Train^talk 08:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

He rambles, but I seldom have problems getting at his meaning, and he is including more detail than last time. So yeah, I would say he's explaining better than previously. It's likely that ST will eventually reduce his posts to a moderate length and stop with the comma-infested runon sentences, just because nobody can keep that up indefinitely. But if he does, I have little doubt he'll be dragged back here again anyway (can't have people dealing with all the spam on Wikipedia, the horror! the horror!) and I'm actually a little curious what next week's pretext might be. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The gist of your argument is that ST's disruptive behaviour is discussed too frequently. Well, I have proposed a solution to just that. A Train^talk 09:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the gist of my argument is that he'll keep getting dragged back here no matter what he says or how he says it. The guy's in a position where he's going to get kicked no matter what he does, and it's fundamentally unfair. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. You admit yourself that's he rambling, and that is making AFD a more difficult place to work. You suggest that eventually he'll stop rambling, so are we just hostages until then? If he was making cogent points at AFD and not spurious nominations and word salad arguments I guarantee you that he would not be here. Your entire argument assumes factionalism and bad faith on my part, when in fact I had nothing to do with the previous ANI discussion at all. A Train^talk 09:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see rambling as particularly disruptive, I don't see AfD participants as "hostages", and I see no reason to solve by topic ban an issue that's only an overcorrection for a previous issue and will go away on its own. If you want to usefully police AfD behaviour, there's far more annoying people than ST. May I suggest looking at all the chuckleheads who like to wind up nominators by going "speedy keep- no argument for deletion" on perfectly well-argued nominations? Reyk _YO! 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This continued whinge campaign is actually about ST being resented for being a prolific, primarily deletionist, editor at AfD. Exactly! Patent WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER. Somehow "keep" voters don't get dragged to ANI, despite some of them having a much lower accuracy rate, placing walls of text on AfDs and being obnoxious. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Everyone has their own editing style: if you really want to start blocking people just for TLDR, that would set a dangerous precedent. WP:BECAREFULWHATYOUWISHFOR. ST isn't doing anything in breach of his previous AfD closure (and noting that the other did not close at all), which is the important thing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG per WP:HOUNDING Kleuske (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose So ... I haven't actually read the OP, but is FIM correct in implying that someone is suggesting blocking SwisterTwister for TLDR? Because if so, A Train should be the first to be fed their own medicine. Also, despite the (apparently accurate) claim that the OP was not involved in the previous ANI threads, it is nonetheless true that the second one was already pushing it (as I pointed out then) and continuing again so very soon after the community rejected it the last time is ... well, unless we can prove the current OP was aware of the previous discussions, I guess a boomerang might not necessarily be in order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Not OUTING, right?

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

---

In (Redacted), I note concerns with a user's unblock request. Specifically, I believe that user was disingenuous with their claim that they did not work for the company. My justification for this involves off-wiki evidence, which I did not post and will not post publicly. I firmly believe this is not a violation of WP:OUTING, but would like another administrator to review this to make sure. This isn't a dispute, there's no claim that I have violated OUTING, but it's an important policy and I want to be sure. I have not notified Ozvision1 (talk · contribs) because I'm looking for a quick review of my actions, not those of Ozvision1. --Yamla (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed the edit. I believe you weren't intentionally trying to, but revealing that info is against the letter of policy. They are blocked, but if you have a concern about that, their talk page isn't the right place, you would mail to an admin at WP:COIN, who would take action. No sanction as I don't see that in any way as an attempt to do wrong, but please be more careful in the future. As far as I'm concerned, no further discussion is needed or desired. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 address Blanked a page

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

---

There was an ip adress named 69.14.153.184 He Blanked Someones Editing I Reverted his edit and i warned him Shark32322 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see this. The IP made a small edit and you reverted them. That is perfectly normal Wikipedia practice. Why did you see fit to issue them with a warning against blanking pages?[185] That is completely over the top and uncalled for. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Bazooka500 vandalism

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bazooka500 has repeatedly vandalized wikipedia, their talk page is studded with warnings about vandalism, including doing the same thing I just reverted 2 days ago, changing the picture of Donald Duck to Donald Trump.... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Duck&type=revision&diff=742858138&oldid=742847120 is the difference Wgfcrafty (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indef'ed by User:Zzuuzz. DMacks (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Edits promoting terrorism

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

---

Please see here. David A (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@David A: That edit isn't technically promoting terrorism; it did nothing to the part of the text that essentially said Qutb rejected terrorism. It may be whitewashing, and may be inaccurate, but it isn't promoting terrorism. Honestly, it looks more like vandalism -- changing "violence" to "peace" looks a lot like what some people might consider humorous. Also, you talk about "edits", plural: can you give some more examples? What exactly do you propose be done? Semi-protect the page? AIV would probably be better for that. IPs can't be indeffed or banned, unless you think they are somebody's sockpuppet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @David A: That just looks like standard vandalism to me, it's been reverted. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the change was done through a series of edits. That is why I used plural. In any case, please take note of the following wording:

"The Islamist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine participate in democratic and political process as well as armed attacks, seeking to abolish the state of Israel, which is one of their rights as rightful citizens who are being robed of their country. Radical Islamist organizations like al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and groups such as the Taliban, entirely accept democracy (since it is in their beliefs), often declaring as kuffar those Muslims who support it (see takfirism), as well as calling for their rights using /jihad."

This clearly seems to promote terrorism to me. David A (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, claiming that those groups engage in activities other than terrorism is not promotion of terrorism. It might be promotion of groups that engage in terrorism, but it does so precisely by downplaying terrorism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand how stating that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are rightfully using jihad, does not qualify as promoting terrorism? David A (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by Hello2u3

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

---

Hello2u3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has twice made threats:

• edit 1: "If this user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qed237 vandalises one more time you will be heading of strait to jail"
• edit 2: "If this user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qed237 vandalise this page one more time I will report it to the police at ceop for racism"

These threats have happened as part of edit warring at the Mesut Özil page by the same user. The edit warring has been reported (here).

Thanks, Robby.is.on (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Also a third threat "If if then last victim converts this to German they will immediately be reported to CEOP and it is very serious.". Qed237 (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, left uw-lblock on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 Luke de paul

The following discussion is closed. 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, Luke de paul is unhappy over their sandbox being deleted so they've posted this on BDDs talkpage, I'm not entirely sure if it would count as a legal threat so figured I'd post here just incase, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat, more of a "I'm gonna get you for this!" type edit. Possibly a frustrated editor if anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If the predicted payment will be in barnstars, barnstars melted down into barnstar bullion, thank-spam or some other on-wiki currency, then it certainly wouldn't be a legal threat. Although it's a silly comment to be making to a fellow editor anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought but would rather be safe than sorry, Okie dokie I'll close this up, Thanks for helping anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 16:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 editor promoting neo-Nazi author Troy Southgate

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

---

Special:Contributions/94.60.196.117

The above editor inserted a book by Troy Southgate into a number of articles (sample diff). The editor also extensively edited the Troy Southgate article which currently includes the following: "He has been involved in revolutionary politics as both an activist and underground journalist for over 30 years, and is Organising Secretary of the New Right."

I suggest that the editor be preventatively blocked, and their edits looked at, especially the Southgate article. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked for spamming, then really screwed up nuking whole articles instead of edits, then the database locked up while trying to restore those, jeez. Someone please revert his edits. I need a beer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No worries, Dennis. You're all set. I restored the redirects that were deleted as a result and the changes made by the IP today have been reverted :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• As I said on my talk page, that qualifies as the most boneheaded thing I've done here. Blocking, however, was the right move. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Incivility and use of profanity by user Jytdog

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

---

Hello,

I'm writing to express concern over the response of editor Jytdog in regards to edits I made on the page Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell. Editor Jytdog referred to my edits as “an orgy of laziness”, “a f***ing mess” (with the actual word), and “shot full of invalid claims”. I hope that in posting to the ANI, this issue can be properly addressed.

In response to the claims made by Jytdog: I believe that the “aftermath of laziness” refers to my inclusion of references as links to Pubmed. These linked to the appropriate research article, but did not include author name, title, etc directly in the Wikipedia entry. If there is a systematic way to format and include references in this style, I would be happy to know and incorporate this.

The “shot full of invalid claims” was part of a larger comment: "way, way too many primary sources and claims of "in X year Y lab was the first to do Z" sourced to Y's paper. shot full of invalid claims. that paper cannot be used as the source that it was first. need third party to say that”. Jytdog’s claim of invalidity is inaccurate and unfounded. The use of primary references does not equate to invalidity. Furthermore, in my edit [186], I included two review articles (references 11 and 12) to corroborate the primary sources (references 13-17; the information from reference 18 had been put there by another user). However, in an effort to address this, Jytdog introduced an inaccuracy that would be upsetting to the authors involved in the studies. Such issues with references would be better handled through discussion of content, rather than deletion or use of vulgar language.

Moving forward, I ask that the use of profanity and incivility by user Jytdog is dealt with appropriately by the community. Thank you,

CellbioPhD (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. In response to the aversion on the use of primary literature sources, I believe that including this information is helpful to scientists and the public looking to understand the development of a field. As a scientist, I would rather see direct references to publications in an area (e.g. the paper that discovered gene X) than a link to a review article (although knowing the primary source has been corroborated is helpful). In a new field (like iPSCs), it takes time for review articles to be published. It makes more sense to post information as it becomes available from primary sources, then to include corroborating secondary sources as they become available, and to discuss content as needed. This may be different from medical articles where patients may be looking to base treatment options on what they read from Wikipedia, and use of careless citation can be harmful. As someone with experience in iPSCs, I would like to continue citing primary sources in addition to relevant review articles, and hope that questions of inaccuracy can be resolved through amicable discussion within the community.

Relevant links:

• Page: Induced pluripotent stem cell
• User: User:Jytdog
• History of edits: History: Induced pluripotent stem cell
• Relevant diff: 742294863

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CellbioPhD (talk • contribs)

I notice you made no attempts to contact Jytdog about this issue. You didn't even notify him that you opened this thread, though maybe you are busy doing that right now, I hope. ANI is where you go when an issue cannot be resolved by discussion with the users involved - it's not where you run to tattle on someone for using bad words, or to complain that someone disagreed with you. Regarding the disagreement over references, ANI doesn't care. Content disputes are to be resolved through dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: The previous close was:

  Not a matter for ANI. As Someguy1221 hinted at, this is a content dispute, and should thus be discussed on the article's talk page (although Jytdog does need to scale back on the profanity-laden edit summaries). (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

  Rebbing 16:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have reopened the thread after it was closed by Erpert because I believe the usage of inappropriate edit summaries is a recurring issue by Jytdog. Although I'm glad that Erpert acknowledged the issue he merely claimed that Jytdog needs "to scale back on the profanity-laden edit summaries". That was accurate, but it was a little bit soft IMO. There was no suggestion of how it may be enforced if Jytdog doesn't comply and I'm pretty sure that Jytdog will simply continue with inappropriate edit summaries. Over the past two months I can recall five separate people complaining about Jytdog's incivility. I would have attempted to gather all the examples of incivility or simple strawmans and other ridiculous edit summaries but my computer is too sloppy and slow for that. I have to go by my memory unfortunately. Let me reiterate. Jytdog is not a bad editor, but a lack of respectful communication is not conducive to a cooperative and community-generated project such as Wikipedia. If you do not express your concern in edit summaries after a major revamp it suggests a lack of respect for other editor's, as if they do not deserve to know about a specific concern. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Proposal I propose that Jytdog either (a) is required to receive mentorship in regards to edit summaries for two weeks (14 days), wherein an established editor monitors his usage of edit summaries. Or (b), there be a formal notice in the closure of this thread that requires his edit summaries be focused on content in a civil manner. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support A. I support option A because I'm going to assume good faith and assume that Jytdog is unaware of how distracting his edit summaries can be. As far as I'm aware, no previous admonition of a formal nature has been aplied to Jytdog so I think this is an appropriate first step. A formal notice or a caution with consequences might be more appropriate on subsequent violations if it continues. The positive thing about proposal A is that even if it accomplishes nothing, at least we are acknowledging that Jytdog has an edit summary problem - thats a step in the right direction. What irks me is that most of the time this incivility is directed at newer editors which does not help our aim of attracting new contributors. I support option B as a secondary option. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose both so-called 'remedies' as being for an imaginary problem. 'Distracting' edit summaries, indeed. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Way to waste people's time, Pwolit iets. Is it uncivil to call a fucking mess a fucking mess? Discuss. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Its fine to call it a motherfucking mess. But shouldn't he mention why its a sisterfucking mess? Pwolit iets (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In that case, we can close this with no further discussion, as it seems it's not the presumed incivility that is now the issue, but the fact that no causal link was offered. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To me its the combination of no causal link and incivility that crossed the red line. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not get to describe other editor's work thus: "fix aftermath of an orgy of laziness". Jytdog knows this, he has been warned for it often enough before. Let alone this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support the second. Which is unsurprising as isn't, "edit summaries be focused on content in a civil manner" a requirement upon all of us?

Jytdog is a superior sort of editor to the rest of us. Because he limits his editing to absolutist hard-line imposition of his sourcing policies (which might be agreed by MEDRS but are in excess of our general policies and are downright unwelcome outside MEDRS) then he has achieved some status as a tenured editor, above the petty rules on civility which constrain the editorial proletariat. He is happy to exploit this; he is regularly abusive to others: either by simple uncivility, high-handed reversion of the lesser editors and even bright-line harassment by raising fatuous SPIs.

We should not have two degrees of editorship like this. If any of us are constrained by such as CIVILITY, then all should be. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

But are we constrained by it, Andy Dingley? You, for one, seem to frequently get away with a surprising amount of passive aggression and nastiness (as here, "a superior sort of editor to the rest of us", "the petty rules on civility which constrain the editorial proletariat") without getting sanctioned for it. According to WP:CIV, that you reference, editors "should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably". I believe habitual combativeness, sarcasm and a victimized stance harm the "pleasant editing environment" more than the use of salty words when provoked. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

Its not merely incivility for Jytdog. I once saw him being asked a genuine question on a content dispute and he dismissed it rudely. Therefore it is not limited to edit summaries, nor incivility, but that is the most obvious thing that is out there. But I am currently restricted to writing my responses on a typewriter and subsequently copy-pasting here since my computer does not work properly. Andy on the other hand I do not see problems with in the most important regions where civility is prized - in the midst of content disputes, in edit summaries and talk pages. That is where a clear head, decent temperament is valued most. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A "victimised stance"? So when Jytdog lies by stating that it would be ridiculous to open an SPI on me and he would never do such a thing, then goes right ahead and does so, I have no right to complain? Jytdog is an abusive bully. He uses his established position as a bastion from which to attack other editors he perceives as weaker. Often these are simply newer editors unfamiliar with the arcana hereabouts.

Two of the worst problems here these days are cliques and the two-tier ranks of editors. Editors like Jytdog, ********* and **** are given a free pass on civility which is not extended to others. Jytdog goes past this into overt bullying too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

What has this got to do with me? I have to say that I find your continual aggression to be very offensive, so kindly remove my name from your list above, or I'll do it for you. Eric Corbett 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support B per the very first bullet in the civility policy. The policy does not solely refer to the use of profanity. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Propose Close this thread. Trout all those who took part, including me I suppose. (ADD, but not Bishonen, she frightens me). -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment @CellbioPhD: is asking to do something that is deprecated in our NOR policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
• As an aside, what he was fixing that he called an orgy of laziness seems to have been references. I'll also say that Eric shouldn't have been dragged into this, that could be seen as provocative. The same goes for Cassianto, or any other editor in fact. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If Jytdog has a problem with CellbioPhD's use of primary sources (and might be right to do so, per MEDRS) then a far more useful action would have been to raise this with them and to explain why those primary sources were a problem. Abusively removing them, as he did, is not an appropriate or useful response. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Andy. Pwolit iets (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, Jytdog (along with Doc James) DID politely point out the error of CellbioPhD's ways, multiple times, and were ignored. This whole thread is silly. Capeo (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose a formal warning or sanctions at this point. In context, the edit summaries "shot full of invalid claims" and "such a fucking mess" are plain, fair descriptors of content and do not violate the civility policy. I agree that describing good-faith editing as "an orgy of laziness," while accurate—leaving a mess of bare URLs for another editor to clean up is lazy—is somewhat disrespectful.

  However, for better or for worse, this kind of snide remark is well within the norm. Some of the comments in this very thread are far more personal, damaging, and unmerited than the edit summaries under discussion: this comment dripping in venom and casting aspersions without diffs and this comment making even more serious accusations, still without evidence, and going out of the way to slam two uninvolved editors stand out. Yet will those be punished? For the unawares, the proposer has a long-running grudge against Jytdog's application of MEDRS—see here (proposing to use ANI to draw attention to Jytdog's editing), here (ordering Jytdog to cease and desist from his application of MEDRS), here (Jytdog's response), or here ("I have tracked your edits going back to April")—and recently employed another ANI thread to suggest that Jytdog's use of the English idiom "it's all Greek to me" could be perceived as racist. The civility policy is not a cudgel to bloody one's enemies. Rebbing 17:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think I have a grudge against you, you are mistaken. I have on at least three occasions said positive words about you. Even within this thread I have said that my primary (if only) concern about you is you concescending attitude in your edit summaries (and less commonly on talk pages) and other than that I'm cool with you. If you improve that, I am totally fine with you as an editor and may even nominate you for adminship. I literally have nothing against you. We don't even edit in the same topic area. How could I possibly have a grudge against someone who by and large edits completely different articles to myself? I do however dislike newbies being disrespected. I have seen you disrespect newbies a couple of times in edit summaries and don't like it. I also dislike it when a possibly constructive debate is derailed by condescension. Simple as that. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I was meant to reply to Jytdog but he seems to have removed his comments. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I commented here and then thought better of it and within the minute I removed it, before anyone had replied. As noted above this is the second time you have created dramah at ANI about me, your kind words here (thank you for saying them) notwithstanding. You are clearly overly focused on me and the drama you are trying to create; we have work to do building an encyclopedia Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes we should build an encyclopedia, but on this website that requires teamwork, not a one-man show wherein one-side vents his frustration on others through his edit summaries. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very sucky sort of record. I wonder who Pwolit iets was before he or she was Pwolit iets. I'd be much more inclined to sanction Pwolit iets than Jytdog based on the above, for what seems like an abuse of process to fight personal battles; exactly the sort of drama we can do without. I'd settle for closing this waste of time thread. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's par for the course was with him. After I posted my comment above, he left me this message: it seems he views my inconvenient pointing out his grudge against Jytdog as part a "hallucinatory and defamatory campaign" against him. The evidence suggests otherwise: less than a week ago, he started this smear thread about me at a WikiProject; there's also these indefensible, harassing reverts from a few weeks ago. Rebbing 18:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have been in content disputes with roughly 50 people so far on wikipedia. Do I have a grudge against all of them? Thats ridiculous! What makes Jytdog stand out is his condescension in his edit summaries. My proposal is not punitive. It is meant to be preventative because these edit summaries are not constructive. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If I truly had a grudge against Jytdog in that way don't you think I would have proposed to have him blocked or topic banned rather than merely focused on his civlity in edit summaries? If so, it is truly disturbing how inconsequential incivility is on Wikipedia. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

TBH, you look & smell like a troll, Pwolit iets, not here to build the encyclopedia but to play some sort of game of your own devising and rules. And what sort of shitty argument is that: "If I truly had a grudge I'd have harrassed him in that way rather than the way I'm actually harrassing him." ffs. So go on then. Who exactly were you before you registered your current identity? Because sure as shit, a user with your edit history was not new to wikipedia a bare few months ago. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Account just over 2 months old, fewer than 1000 total edits, with only 227 to article space, and I have been in content disputes with roughly 50 people so far on wikipedia. That's an impressive other people's time to contribution ratio. Oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support B. As a first choice since that was what Someguy1221 seemed to hint at previously and some of the arguments for B above. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You already said that and your grudge is obvious. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay I will prove to you that I don't have a grudge against you (even thought I don't need to prove it) by assuring you I will contact you a few weeks from now after judging whether your edit summaries have chnaged at all. If so, I promise you will sense a completely different vibe from me - a positive one. How many times do I have to repeat that i'm fine with with your general edits in the article space. Its primarily your edit summaries that need work. It needs work in the sense that it needs to acknowledge that editors are not paid to be here, but rather edit for free and there should be some appreciation for their effort, even if it has mistakes by at least giving them some respect. I believe that any action that makes good-intentioned and feasibly constructive newbies feel unwelcome should not be tolerated. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

that just proves you are obsessed with me. your proposal is as weird and stalkery as your very first comment to me. i am starting to wonder if you are not yet another sock of biscuittin, who also is/was weirdly obsessed with me. I don't understand how people get caught up in the social/drama part of this place. Only about 30% of your edits are on content. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense for someone to be obsessed with anoter person who edits a totally different subject area to another. We by and large edit completely different topics. Why the hell would I be obsessed with you? Pwolit iets (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am just describing your behavior; I can't explain it. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I suggest you get over your solipsism. The moment you treat your fellow editors more humanely (especially in edit summaries), and make more of an effort to explain why their contributions are wrong, and you treat wikipedia as a collaborative project rather than a 1-man spectacle, I will have no interest in you whatsoever (thats if I had any to begin with). In fact I completely forgot you existed until I recognized your name here. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• As I noted in my withdrawn remark I am aware i am too harsh sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So why do you keep doing it? No wish to, or an inability to? Neither of those are good attributes in an editor here, especially not one taking such a high-handed standpoint on content matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am human and have character flaws; I fail sometimes to manage them adequately and I generally ackowledge it when I fuck up. I was too harsh in my edit notes with regard to CellBioPhDs edits. Please answer this - why are you an inch away from a one-way IBAN with regard to me? Why did you ignore that and afterwards continually disrupt the SPIs against Biscuittin? (note that the archive doesn't include this removed by an admin) Real questions. Please answer. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

In short series you filed an SPI against CaptainYuge and drove him off the project within days. You filed one against me with the comment "It feels weird to file this", shortly after you had lied and said "No I wouldn't raise an SPI over you. You are Andy Dingley, and are known around here." and you then went on to award me a "Moron Diploma". So after that, your filing of a third SPI against an editor you were in dispute with was less than convincing.

You are not careless, or flawed, you are nasty. You are a bully and you use your reputation as "the defender of MEDRS" to attack other editors who are less well established. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer the question; which is why did the community almost impose an IBAN on you and why did you ignore that community feedback?

You are continuing the behavior that brought you to the edge of an IBAN. You again have misrepresented every one of those events and it is clear now that you have twisted these things into some picture of me that you carry around and hate. That is not my problem; it is yours. I am sorry that you carry that around. I am also sorry that you cannot see what you are doing - that you too have flaws you are not managing well. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and someone please close this. It's becoming unproductive. When the now-reverted close was made a while back, I was concerned about the reference to the edit summaries in the closing statement, because I've been giving Jytdog advice about this sort of thing for quite some time, and I was worried. So I took a careful look at his contribution history during several days leading up to this complaint. And that is hundreds of edits! And I found exactly two (2) edits with edit summaries that fit this description: [187] and [188]. That's it. The second is just annoyance over a bot message at his own user talk page. The first is, I assume, what brought us here. And it's one edit in a long series of edits cleaning up citations that were messed up at Induced pluripotent stem cell. It's not directed at another editor. There is no personal attack. It's annoyance over a long clean-up process. This ANI thread should have stayed closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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

RuPaul's Drag Race: All Stars (season 2)

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

---

Will someone please protect this page asap? There's a request at RFPP, but the amount of vandalism is insane. APK whisper in my ear 02:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Many thanks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Impersonation 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.

---

TheDangerousJXD needs to be blocked. See #Imposter above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

How about setting up a load of alt accounts so as to claim the names? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Simply put, I have better things to do. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. More fun giving Widr work to do anyway ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

HazardousJXD is another. It's easy to find these. —DangerousJXD (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Both blocked. Widr (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

WWGB vandalism at article 2016 Hoboken Train

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

---

• Talk:2016 Hoboken train crash (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Editor WWGB maliciously deleted a comment on the article "2016 Hoboken Train Crash" for a very insufficient reason, claiming it was an "opinionated, unsubstantiated attack on a known person". [189] This is not the only example of his bad intent on this Talk page. This, after a report on both NBC and ABC National News (and numerous other Googleable sources) reporting that the Engineer had accelerated the train from 8 mph to 21 mph a mere 38 seconds before the collision, and then set the emergency brake only 1 second before the collusion. Google search: 'Hoboken 38 seconds' for numerous examples of this. If this was a "opinionated, unsubstantiated attack on a known person", then both the NBC and ABC National news articles were the same kind of "attack". Further, this was the TALK page, not the article page. Is it really proper for someone to erase some other's comments on a Talk page, just because he doesn't like them there? Editor WWGB is clearly demonstrating some kind of bias here. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Watch out for those boomerangs. Commenting that it was "deliberate" was likely why they reverted you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This was a TALK page, not an article page. Support the idea that a person cannot express an opinion on a TALK page. Support the idea that a person should go so far as to delete a comment on the TALK page, rather than merely contradict it if he disagrees with it. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere. You cannot suggest someone intentionally derailed a train. That would be a criminal act. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You OBVIOUSLY do not know the law. Libel is civil law, not criminal. In the talk page, I said: "Sure sounds deliberate to me." I expressed my opinion that this sounds deliberate. That is an accurate statement of fact: I do, indeed, believe that this sounds deliberate. Generally, well-identified statements of opinion are not considered libelous. I DID NOT say something like, "The engineer deliberately crashed the train". To say THAT would arguably be libelous, but even then, to say that would not be a criminal act, contrary to your confusion. I continue to assert it is improper for editor WWGB to delete my comments. This is from the article, WP:Talk_Page_Guidelines:

Editing comments Others' comments It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It may irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. If you make anything more than minor changes it is good practice to leave a short explanatory note such as "[possible libel removed by 71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)]". Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments: [end of quote]

71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It's obviously far too early to say what caused the 2016 Hoboken train crash. Even talk pages should not contain material that violates WP:BLP, and the edit in question violated WP:NOTAFORUM anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting statement of your opinion. Deftly, you implied that what I had added violated WP:BLP, when in fact it hadn't. Don't try to impose it onto other people if the WP rules don't already state that. Anyone who tries to micro-manage other people's additions to a talk page is disrupting the process. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying my comment: if it was intentional, that would be a criminal act by the driver. You cannot suggest criminal behavior per BLP. Strongly recommend you start ducking. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to actually explain how the rules in WP:BLP prohibit a editor from expressing his own well-labelled opinion that the actions of a person are deliberate. Even if it's proper to remove libel, I did not commit libel. Strongly recommend you stop being a jerk, as you have numerous times in the past. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPREMOVE point number 2. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't see much wrong with what WWGB did here. If and when the mainstream media suggests that the crash was caused deliberately, fine. Until then it is unsuitable for the article or the talk page. Dashing off to ANI has not helped your cause.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are evidently ignoring the rules I cited from WP:Talk_page_guidelines, about the impropriety of deleting someone else's comments on a talk page. Sounds like you want to ignore the rules where you find it convenient to do so 71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest block for IP editor. They've cast aspersions, violated BLP repeatedly, engaged in IDHT, and are either tag teaming or IP hoping (Special:Contributions/67.5.243.74 geo located to sand place). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you resign from your position. You falsely claimed I "violated BLP repeatedly", when I did not do it once. Notice that I haven't made any edits to an article yet, so your objections are hollow. You are also merely guessing about other things, without any evidence whatsoever. You are displaying the behavior of a typical hostile, malicious WP Administrator. You weren't invited here, and the substance of my original objections has not been addressed yet. WP standards have fallen immensely in the last few years. 71.222.37.253 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

NeilN can I negotiate a retirement package based off that raise you promised me? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No further input from me as OP is not behaving sensibly. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH for why WWGB did nothing much wrong here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Oooh! "WWGB did nothing MUCH wrong here". (emphasis added). I guess it escapes you that this is all I accused WWGB of doing...initially. I said that he shouldn't have deleted material from the Talk page as he did. I cited the proper rule, from WP:Talk Page Guidelines. Arguably, that isn't "much". But it's enough to justify filing a complaint, as I did. Only THEN did I start getting harassed by others here. See how this works? You try to deter people from using the system, by means of harassing them when they do. Does that sound fair? 71.222.37.253 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang block for the OP, who appears to be a Wikilawyering troll. (And it's not a BLP violation to say that.) EEng 04:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

So, somebody is trying to deter people from using the WP:ANI process. File a complaint, cite the rules, and get blocked. Neat!!! 71.222.37.253 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You are assuming bad faith and file a frivolous ANI-report The risk is a aerodynamic piece of wood circling back. Kleuske (talk) 07:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes... Support WP:BOOMERANG. Kleuske (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Should Captain Assassin! have his auto-patrolled right?

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

---

Captain Assassin! is good content creator, but his auto-patrolled right is not right. His articles and redirects are regularly nominated for deletion. His talk page his full of red linked redirect listed for deletion. He creates many redirects of actors/actresses who are not properly mentioned in the main article, as the actors are playing minor role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.39.37.7 (talk) 09:36, 7 October 2016‎ (UTC)

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

Removal of edit summary

The following discussion is closed. 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 this outrageous and offensive edit summary removed from version history and Rockypedia warned not to repeat it or anything like it. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

edit summary removed by Foxj, and I've left them a level 2 NPA warning the user here --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Peterstrempel

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

---

Peterstrempel (talk · contribs) is requesting to be unblocked. He is not blocked directly, but did not provide his IP address so we could investigate the block. Normally, I'd just leave a note indicating that but in this case, I have some concerns. The unblock request states, "You people make Franz Kafka seem like an optimist". Not necessarily inappropriate. Indeed, I think that may be an appropriate reference at times. More concerning, though, he has apparently referred to another editor as "gestapo" and as using "gestapo thuggery"; see the User's talk page. And then.... the User page. "Wikistapo", "Nazi practices", "thuggish abuse of power". All... from a user who doesn't actually appear to be blocked, as they were able to edit their User page after the unblock request came in. I've declined the unblock request as they are still able to edit. But I'm not sure what, if any, further action is warranted here. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Users notified. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well he has not edited with that username since 2013, so I suspect either editing logged out or under another username. Given his complaint about being caught by a webhost block (he says VPN, probably an open proxy) was he editing as an IP? He is editing his usertalk logged in, so there should be no reason why he would be caught (logged in) by any other block? Of course referring to another editor as a 'gestapo thug' means he probably *should* be blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Peterstrempel emailed me and requested that I post his email to this thread. I do so now, unedited except for trivial formatting. Paste begins:

Given that I'm blocked again as soon as I'm on my own computer, I use this means of communication to respond to your admin thread. Feel free to paste the entirety of this email into the admin discussion you started.

Here is the notice I get when I last logged in from my own PC using my own ISP and VPN:

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

Your IP address is in a range which has been blocked on all wikis. The block was made by Vituzzu (meta.wikimedia.org). The reason given is leaky colo + lots of spam at 168.1.53.218.

Start of block: 21:20, 27 November 2015

Expiration of block: 21:20, 27 November 2020

You can contact Vituzzu to discuss the block. You cannot use the "Email this user" feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it. Your current IP address is 168.1.53.217, and the blocked range is 168.1.53.192/26. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia.

You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them.

Editing from 168.1.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by SQL for the following reason(s):

Server-multiple.svgThe IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host provider.

Since the web host acts like a proxy, because it hides your IP address, it has been blocked. To prevent abuse, these IPs may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

If you do not believe you are using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. If you are using a Wikipedia account you will need to request an IP block exemption by either using the unblock template or by submitting an appealing using the unblock ticket request system. If you wish to keep your IP address private you can email the functionaries team.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and they should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

- did not mean to unblock.

This block has been set to expire: 15:53, 19 April 2018.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors and administrators.

Just to be clear, when you saw the request to lift the ban, I was on someone else’s computer, using someone else’s ISP.

I suggest that IP range blocking without regard to user accounts is a crude and stupid policy. How hard can it be to impose a block on an IP range only when it is associated with anonymous or problem users?

In attempting to work out why such as policy should be seriously proposed and pursued when more rational options seem readily available, and stung by being personally blocked as somehow guilty of some unmentioned misdeed, I did send an email to one of the administrators mentioned in the notice. The text of that email is as follows:

You have blocked my IP address with a message stating it belongs to a web hosting provider. What, in particular, makes such IP addresses the targets of this proxy lynching activity? Is it because you're a white American cop and the IP address seemed like a black man to you?

You are aware that IPv4 addresses are running out, and many ISPs use the same IP address for multiple clients, differentiated by the ISP by matching to MAC addresses?

Have you ever heard of VPNs?

Why aren't you matching user IDs to IPs when making your inexplicably silly decisions about blocks? If my user login credentials don't match suspect behaviour from an anonymous user with the same IP address, why block me at all in the first place? Is it because you are too ignorant of how the internet works, or because you are too lazy to do the necessary work?

Or is it just your particular implementation of the trump wall brought to Wikipedia?

I remember now why I stopped contributing. You people make Franz Kafka's imagination about bureaucratic absurdity seem tame.

I want the chance to delete my user page and account. Then you and your Gestapo buddies can go lynch anyone you like here. I don't mix in that kind of disgusting company.

Until that administrator replied on my talk page this was a private rebuke for what I still maintain is an abuse of administrative power. The abuse lies in not considering downstream effects of IP range blocking. And until that reply, which immediately threatened me with further sanctions (removal of the use of email), I had intended to do no more than delete my account. But after that extra kick in the ribs with a Wikistapo jackboot, I thought I’d stick around long enough to find out how Wikipedia became beholden to such authoritarian ideas, and how it came to put such thugs in charge.

Tell me honestly why a person who woukld respond immediately with threats of abusive power is fit to be an administrator, and not likened to some rogue cop or Gestapo thug? Tell me I'm wrong to suggest this is now so much an Amerikaner mindset you guys can't even see it as baleful and authoritarian any more.

using the

If you’re (where 'you' is any Wikipedia admin) serious about understanding what I’m talking about, you need to be able to imagine being a Wikipedia user who has no idea about, nor cares for its bureaucracy, and who lives in a real world in which people are still called out to face responsibility for their actions.

Even if you don’t care for my opinions, or particularly when that's the case, I’m telling you plainly that Wikipedia's shortage of a diverse, educated and informed range of editors is due to precisely this kind of perception of admins. How patronising and authoritarian do your attitudes need to be before you too can recognise them as worthy of comparison with the Gestapo? Or are you proposing that as a matter of ideology I can never make that comparison, no matter how true it has become?

My response to actions and policies that have all the appearance of authoritarian overreach are not yours to question or censor except by acting to redress the crypto-fascism they represent. If you cannot act in that manner, you have made it true that Wikipedia is now a project whose aims are facilitating the abuse of power by its admins, and which no longer has any real focus on atrtracting editors to produce a creditable encyclopedia.

By all means, ban me. Block me. Burn me in effigy. I expect nothing less. I suspect you'd actually shoot me dead in the street if you thought you could get away with it. It is proof to me of how insulated from reality you people have become, and how on-point my critique really is.

As for taking issue with being likened to the Gestapo, or called Wikistapo, I’ll just repeat: if the shoe fits. And if it doesn’t, what the hell are you complaining about? It’s me who’s blocked and maligned, and it’s you with the punitive truncheon in your hands.

Paste ends. --Yamla (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that the IP address IPWHOIS's to Softlayer and has a description, "Hosting Services Inc. (dba Midphase)". This does not contradict anything Peterstrempel said, I'm just posting it as information. --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we really need someone who, at the first sign of an issue, immediately jumps on to a Godwin wagen and drives off at full speed? The histrionics and hyperbole are quite enough that, even if they were unblocked, I don't foresee them being a person one would want to edit with. Blackmane (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, they've decided that Twitter is the best place to solve a dispute. Blackmane (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The user compared an IP being blocked to black people being killed by cops. ("Is it because you're a white American cop and the IP address seemed like a black man to you?") No. Just no. This, mixed with the immediate Gestapo allegations tell me this is not the type of editor we need on Wikipedia. Also this: "I suspect you'd actually shoot me dead in the street if you thought you could get away with it." The hyperbole is over the top. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that the user is not currently blocked (at least, not directly). The above discussion appears to be in support of blocking the user indefinitely. I bring this up because if this is the consensus, it will require action once this discussion is closed. --Yamla (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I just dropped a, rather long, comment on their talk page. Their behaviour disgusts me and that they're supposedly a professional is astounding. Support indefinite block, revoke TPA and email as well. Blackmane (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You all are really going above and beyond to prove his points for him. 129.9.75.197 (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What points? It looks like he had some technical problem that prevented him from editing. Instead of addressing the issue calmly and rationally, he immediately jumped to the conclusion that there's some nefarious conspiracy to censor his opinions. If he flies off the handle at an autoblock, how can we expect him to stay civil during something like an editing dispute? clpo13_(talk) 17:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

That block was actually made by @Elockid: [190] I had misclicked and accidentally unblocked it, so I reblocked it. As far as the emails, I think a warning is sufficient at this time, unless the user persists with this behavior. SQL^{Query me!} 15:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• To bring this back to what he actually needs - I assume because of the blocks on the IP/webhost that it would be a request for WP:IPBE? Given the last time he actually contributed substantially was in 2011, would he even qualify for IPBE per the criteria? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • They would need to email the functionaries team, and explain how they meet the criteria: "An editor who has genuine and exceptional need, and can be trusted not to abuse the right.". SQL^{Query me!} 15:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You may want to check that his user page does or does not fall under the category of an attack page on SQL... --Tarage (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It might just be me, but that's a pretty blatant violation of WP:POLEMIC there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• For fucks sake, if you see a blatant personal attack remove it. No wonder no one takes the civility or NPA seriously. A rant leading up to "The idiot responsible for this ban goes by the name of SQL, and seems to have been an administrator for all of five minutes." is in no way acceptable on a userpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To be fair, I don't think anyone really read the whole thing. I lost interest after the second mention of Wikistapo. Also, maybe Strempel should get a handle on the difference between "block" and "ban" before making more of a fuss. clpo13_(talk) 18:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I was trying to get a handle on what he specifically needs to do to be able to edit again in order to advise him on the specific steps to take, but I am starting to think there is little point. As I said, he hasnt substantially edited since 2011, I cant see the functionaries going with 'genuine and exceptional need' for IPBE, and given his attitude I doubt he would even appreciate it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

State-sponsored terrorism

Hello Admins... I wanted to take it with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who performed admin actions at the recent Afd of an article which is draftified now at Draft:India and state-sponsored terrorism. But their talk page is locked for IPs. The same content that was discussed and removed from this new draft space has been added by pro-Pak editors now at the subject article space. This is very much against how CONSENSUS works. This disregards efforts of so many editors in reaching consensus and various admins who have been controlling these discussions. I request FPaS, or any admin actually to take action on that article space too before edit warring and socking and all start there. 106.209.140.57 (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Before we take you seriously, please identify yourself: what's your previous role in that discussion? (Please name previous IPs under which you've participated to show you are not another sock yourself). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You may check the timelines of both articles and notice that after the Drafted article was locked on 5:43 4th October, chunks of texts were added on the subject article. Incidently, in fact intentionally, these chuncks are same which User:Vanamonde93 removed in his edits since 30th Sept to 2nd Oct. This is malicious editing pattern exhibited by two editors. 106.209.206.41 (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not an answer to my question. You have one more chance before I treat you as a sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am on a slow mobile network and am fetching info. I hv participated on the draft space and its talk space with 106.209.153.145 and 106.209.233.10, basically the 106.209 series... 106.209.206.41 (talk) 06:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you have protected the subject article and also placed a warning on its talk page. Although the current revision has all text which Vanamonde removed, i trust that he will remove it from here as well. Meanwhile the talk page of the draft article is also protected which prevents me from discussing the points. Can that be unprotected? 106.209.211.18 (talk) 08:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Which edit about adding content are you referring to? Is it this edit? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Am not complaining about any content added to the draft article. Its draft, its out of article space and in time that will be mended. While the draft was in article space, content was removed after consensus on draft's talk page by Vanamonde till 2nd October. After the draft was locked and the Pak-POV could not be pushed there anymore, that removed content was added by Sheriff guy and re-added by Mar4d on our subject article. Now wikipedia had two battlegrounds for same content dispute. THAT content addition is what am objecting to. This means editors have to restart discussion for same content which was deemed unappropriate elsewhere. Thats waste of efforts and time and mallicious behaviour. Btw, i dont think FPaS misunderstood any of my earlier posts. Or are there any more ambiguities? 106.209.172.253 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Anupmehra and User:Drajay1976 have had to restart the discussions and reinvent the wheel. Admins should keep check that once concluded consensus is abided by and no sneaky POV pushing is done like this. 106.209.215.254 (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive anonymous user (Portuguese) — Take Seven

The abusive user is back. How do I know? Same disruptive behaviour and language. "Wtf?"/"WTF?": [191], [192], [193].

Possible new IPv6 range: 2001:8a0:6cc9:9001:9*.

See my previous report to understand the vandal. SLBedit (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism / Racism: Special:Contributions/Mein_kampf_is_the_best

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

---

Obviously not here to build the encyclopedia, judging by the user name and the editing history. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Imposter

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

---

DangerouslyJXD is impersonating DangerousJXD. I don't know if this is the previously reported Clash of Clans vandal or not, but this is absurd. DarkKnight2149 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Widr Just blocked them for impersonation. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 GracefulSlick

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

---

Is this appropriate? Or this? 68.232.71.82 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The second edit is perfectly fine per WP:TPG and WP:BLANKING. As for the first one, I am not so sure. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Both edits are perfectly fine. -- GB fan 22:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also see no problem with either edit, as that user talk page appears to not be protected anymore. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

What isn't appropriate is the OPs failure to notify TGS of this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like that warning should be bigger when editing. The number of users who haven't notified others users is so frustrating. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Jesse Watters

The following discussion is closed. 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 Jesse Watters page needs to be protected. There has been persistent BLP issues with the page all day with IP editors and new editors making claims of racism. I am not saying if there is any truth or not to this, however it should be discussed on talk page on how this information should be presented. VViking_TalkEdits 02:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've protected the article for a week (without reverting the most recent edits), since it's clearly under attack by IPs. Deor (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Humourous Wikipedia essays need to be deleted.

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Humourous Wikipedia essays need to be deleted.

 – No incident reported. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour

The following discussion is closed. 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:Edwardx has been disruptively editing the page Nahed Hattar. He restored content twice using vague edit summaries, as seen here [194], [195]. He ignored WP:ONUS, which clearly states that the onus for consensus is on those seeking to include disputed content. And when pinged on the talk page, he again ignored discussion. Both cases are examples of disruptive editing "not engaging in consensus building". The user does not seem interested in consensus building and simply prefers reverting with no proper reasoning. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

As only three hours passed between the first talkpage comment, and this claim of "disruptive behaviour" at ANI, it is not reasonable to claim that I have "ignored" the article talkpage. I have responded there, Talk:Nahed_Hattar#Undue. Edwardx (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

QTpie: Overreaction to having talk reverted in 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.

---

I reverted a new editor's talk in the article space here, left an 'talk in article' template on their own talk, only to discovered that my talk page has been barraged by the editor (QTpie). This first missive was a WP:SUE threat here; thereafter a series of highly enraged WP:PERSONAL-come-WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS attacks and abuse here, here, and here. Given that I haven't communicated with the editor other than the revert and template, it's a bit OTT.

I don't believe that this editor is in earnest about the threat, but I'm reticent to try to explain why their behaviour is unacceptable (as I would normally do) given that I'm the target of a very angry newbie. It's not something I'd normally post to the ANI about, but I have a bad feeling about exacerbating the situation if I try to communicate with the user on a one-to-one basis. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

QTpie Indeffed for legal threats. Meters (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Need page move vandalism undone

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

---

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Koavf 3 needs to be moved back to Weekly Shonen Jump (magazine) after the latest CC5K vandalism. It should probably be move protected as well. —Farix (t | c) 00:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, all edits of Knowledgekid666 (talk · contribs) needs to be rolled back. —Farix (t | c) 00:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Related, could someone revert all ~900 acts of vandalism by Knowledgekid666 (talk · contribs)? Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jamzy4 - promotional editing and use of AfD for revenge

The following discussion is closed. 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. Yesterday I nominated three pages created by User:Jamzy4 for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Kaywise
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dremo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Magic (musician)

Today, this user revenge-nominated for deletion six articles that I created, seemingly at random:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halifax Examiner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mu Kuang English School
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings Department
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Kowloon Cultural Centre
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Scotia Association of Architects
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Central Kowloon Route

Jamzy4 is apparently not here to build an encyclopedia. I believe he/she is a clever PR professional who has filled his/her user page with a bunch of bells and whistles to appear to be a legitimate editor, but is actually here solely for promotional purposes. Citobun (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

He's also nominated at least one article for deletion because it's author !voted delete on an AFD on one of his own articles. I'll also note that some of his AFD rationales don't even make sense - such as nominating a school on the basis of the guideline for academics. There's also the issue of the image's he's uploaded, but that copyright problem is for commons to deal with. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

So that's 8 bad faith nominations. I deleted the ones that received no attention, closed one, and let another stand since an uninvolved editor voiced an opinion to redirect. One other AFD was closed by another editor. Yeah, this is pretty ridiculous, so Jamzy4 is blocked for a week. On the subject of COI, not sure. I assumed rather that he's just really into Nigerian music and wants to get articles on people in that field onto Wikipedia. He seems to have very little understanding of Wikipedia policy, no understanding of copyright, and has taken this whole thing very personally. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I closed the last one that you didn't before I saw this; as the uninvolved editor was really advocating a selective merge (even though they bolded "redirect"), I felt like it fit the speedy keep criteria, and I left a note directing interested parties to have a merge discussion if they want. Feel free to revert if you feel it's inappropriate. Cheers, ansh666 06:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't recall a revenge campaign at Afd like this. It's a pretty egregious misuse of editing privileges and I would be in favour of a longer or indefinite ban. If he has indeed nominated at least one article for deletion because it's author merely !voted delete on an AFD, this is as blatant an attempt to intimidate the community as I have seen in some time and a 7 day slap on the wrist seems an insufficient measure to protect other editors. Even fairly minor cases of sockpuppetry result in indef bans -- when you combine the promotional editing with his repeated attempts to punish and intimidate other editors for calling attention to his practices, surely this is vastly worse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Filter? Rangeblock? Synthesizer patch trivia LTA case from New York

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

---

There's a person using multiple IPs from New York who adds unreferenced trivial stuff to music articles. The most recognizable pattern is like this one in which a song article gets something like the following text clumsily inserted into the first sentence:

• ...(where the [model of synthesizer] patch/sound was/were heard)...

Here are some examples:

• 8 Oct 2600:1017:B42C:F2BD:39DF:B887:9F4C:57B3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 Oct 2600:1017:B829:DB9A:602B:3727:3BD2:2ADB (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27 Sept 2600:1017:B81C:911D:A591:6D14:580A:3E3F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 Sept 2600:1017:B80C:8923:3931:FD2A:6643:B8AA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1017:B802:AECC:7180:7036:B70D:8F0C (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 1 Sept 2600:1000:B10B:9C5:384B:2589:1406:1C07 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 July 2600:1017:B82C:A4C4:2453:58A4:DD3E:A3E6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 July 2600:1017:B818:FC2:7452:75E3:151E:7E75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 17 July 2600:1001:B116:9629:DD5:5BD9:18FD:2C41 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 16 July 70.192.67.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 June 2600:1001:B128:4F85:DDCF:A0E6:3C6C:4C44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 June 2600:1017:B40A:E3AB:3D69:CC5C:6589:1B2E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25 June 2600:1017:B81A:7B1D:1CC1:4BC0:E2BD:409F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 21 June 2600:1017:B814:6C8C:85F2:2AF:B89F:D435 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 10 June 2600:1017:B809:3743:9DA3:6F49:B45D:B193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 22 May 2600:1017:B808:590F:8C6A:ABD7:252C:FA9E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 3 May 2600:1017:B40A:79F6:F51A:9F70:F038:5217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 30 April – 1 May 2600:1017:B81A:4F01:1977:B827:7A34:6E12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 20 April 2600:1017:B80B:5A78:E817:36EB:13FD:31B6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 28 March 2600:1017:B80F:61EF:2582:6E38:CB38:42E0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 13 March 70.214.107.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 8 March 2600:1017:B820:33DD:F095:AED6:C1A7:D8D6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 26 February 2600:1017:B42C:452:E03B:F767:B25B:5695 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 12–13 February 2600:1017:B81A:597C:F81E:2DFF:EAE0:334 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 27–28 January 70.199.102.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 25–26 January 2600:1017:B822:9C5C:E85B:E505:981B:C8B9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 January 2600:1017:B817:3A18:219E:798A:6F87:558B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 7–9 January 70.214.96.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 14 December 2015 2600:1017:B806:BC85:D991:4755:1262:82D7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 19 October 2600:1017:B818:4D25:44A:DF1:5914:41F4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Some of these IPs have been blocked for this disruption, for instance a few weeks ago on 1 September and on 8 September, both blocked by Widr. If this disruptive person stuck around for more than a few days on any IP address I would try to reason with him or her, but that hasn't happened. So to stop the disruption, do we put a filter together to stop the clumsy insertions of trivia? Or do we set a rangeblock in place on the most frequently used group, 2600:1017:B...? Binksternet (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think an edit filter is the way to go here. He's not editing frequently enough to justify a rangeblock for 2600:1017:b800::/42, and for the rest we'd have to block the /64s or /128s individually. Katie^talk 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have requested an edit filter. Let's see how that goes. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• An edit filter was knocked together by MusikAnimal who will update us after seeing what triggers the filter. SummerPhDv2.0 says that the elation of a successful filter might yield an epic poem or "something". Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yep, no hits yet but I tested the filter on the list of edits Binksternet provided. The only reason I'm doing this by the way is because I really want to see SummerPhDv2.0's poetic talent. I'm holding you to it! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• "There once was a man from Geatland..." - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Some issues about User:Gayviewmahat

I am pretty concerned about this user Gayviewmahat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As you can see on his contributions, almost all of his edits are maked as minor, even if it is not. I have notified him about that a couple of times in his talk page but it seems as if he really do not know that there are messages there or he just intentionally ignores them. I also do not know if the minor edit box in his browser is already checked (Is there a default setting of a check minor edit box?) or it is just already a habit of his. Another thing is he really does not use the edit summary for his edits. He just leaves the pre-filled edit summary box without his own edit summary.

Lastly, I found this two talk pages, User talk:Berlin2605 and User talk:120.168.0.31 and both messages are from him. And apparently this user has some "anger management" issues.

I do not think that he is a newcomer here because he has been a user since last year. His edits are actually done in good faith but with these concerns I think there should be some action to be done. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, blatant personal attacks. Might have some CIR issues. I don't know if a block is the right way to go here, but it may be necessary. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a block is needed (a soft block will do) to at least aware him of these. Warnings seems to be useless for response from him is close to none. If he does this again in the future, I prefer a much longer block. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Problematic move

User BAICAN XXX has moved an article about a Moldovan political party to this, but it doesn't seem to be in line with Wikipedia policies. In comparison with other parties, for instance the Sweden Democrats, the article doesn't redirect to the Swedish name Sverigedemokraterna. This user is well-known in several Wikipedia projects for problematic contributions and a hostile attitude towards other users and administrators, and a refusal to communicate in any other language than Romanian. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, it should be the common name or the legally/technically correct name, but titling policies vary widely. The new page name is the one it should've been, considering it's correct and also more commonly used in the media. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But doesn't this mean that we have to rename articles so the main title is in the language of origin? I mean, the implications are huge - we would even be forced to rename countries and cities too. It just doesn't make sense. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, what I said doesn't imply such wide-ranging effects. If that were the case, most of the titles wouldn't be in the English language. We have to see what's more common from a global perspective - a very easy thumbrule is to check the number of search results in Google in each title, like "India" and "Bharat". While, it can certainly be called Bharat, India is a better-known name, though Bharat is the synonym in Hindi. In this case, it's the opposite - if you see the references, you'll find that the current name is actually more used, even though there's a different name for the party in English. Hope that clears it up. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The relevant policy summary is WP:UE. Convention is that we use the name that predominates in reliable English-language sources unless there aren't enough English-language sources to show a common name, in which case the foreign name is used. My armchair analysis is that the new title is likely correct. Rebbing 19:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if BAICAN XXX's conduct is actually disruptive, but, if you'd like to contest the move, you should be able to move Partidul Nostru (Moldova) back to Our Party (Moldova), and Biacan can start a move discussion if he wants to go through with it. Or, for a softer solution, you could start a discussion yourself to move the page back. See WP:RM#CM for instructions. Rebbing 19:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (political parties) might be helpful. Neutrality^talk 21:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @QEDK:, @Rebbing: and @Neutrality: for clearing things up. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby articles

I brought 66.235.36.153 (talk · contribs) here last month (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive933#66.235.36.153 on Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations) regarding disruptive editing, the result was temporary semi-protection on the page in question. After the page was protected, the editor continued problematic talk page behavior and a number of other editors requested a block but the thread was archived before any further action was taken. Predictably, the editor has continued edit warring since the protection expired.

Edit war 1:[196][197][198]; Warning[199]

Edit war 2:[200][201][202]LM2000 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fellow Good Faith Editors The statement of the fellow good faith editor that this editor has been engaged in 'edit warring' is a falsehood. A check of the edit history of Cosby will reveal that this editor (this writer) has continued to add better RS (such as the NYT), better than some of the gossipy material used in the article. The adding of those better sourced RS and the new information they contained were labeled as 'edit warring'. Some registered editors seem to think of IP editors as lesser contributors than themselves. This good faith editor has made numerous requests and was usually the first to go to the proper talk page to work out an edit in good faith. The editor above just kept deleting a properly cited edited based on better RS with new information and then claimed a false 'edit war'. This business of 'registered editors' making false claims of 'edit warring' on the part of IP editors needs to stop ..now. It is disruptive to the development of a good article. Please any editor who wishes go to the talk page of the Cosby allegations article and verify this for your self. With deep concern. Sincerely 66.235.36.153 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC) A Contributor

The third person thing you're doing is obnoxious. --Tarage (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tarage Apologies that you take offense at the use of 'third person', certain beliefs of this editor ( and many other persons) to do otherwise would be in conflict with sincerely held language disciplines.. One thinks it is the policy of Wikipedia's community to allow for one to have a choice of language structure with which to communicate. The point of this segment, for this writer, is about the abuse of false edit warring to silence IP editors who bring better RS and new information to Wikpedia articles. Sincerely 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)A Contributor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.36.153 (talk)

66.235 seems to not understand what edit warring is. If you continually hit the revert button, you are edit warring. It doesn't matter if you're right, it's still edit warring. In the previous ANI discussion from last month, 66.235 denied that 'slow edit warring' existed.LM2000 (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Hello LM2000 When a person adds entirely new information and better RS to the article and invites a fellow editor to the proper talk page for resolutions that is not 'edit warring'. You completely ignored the invitations to the talk page and that the information added to the article was new information from the major Philadelphia paper and the NYT as RS (the revert button was never once 'hit'). It is a falsehood that this editor denied the 'existence' of 'slow edit warring' only that it was a falsehood that this writer engaged in any such activity...please stop trying to put words in this editors mouth. Please stop dragging fellow good faith editors who have a history of actually improving Wikipedia articles here to defend themselves against falsehoods when the time is better spent improving the articles and RS. If you want to bring in editors for some type of discipline one would suggest you look into the editor who stated openly that Cosby should be treated like Hitler and then posted an anti-Cosby blog site as an RS, then complained when this editor removed it from the article. Sincerely A Contributor66.235.36.153 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

When a person adds entirely new information and better RS to the article and invites a fellow editor to the proper talk page for resolutions that is not 'edit warring'. Yes, it is. There is not exception to the Three Revert Rule for 'good content'. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Per your comments in the last ANI thread, That was what, is, being referred to as 'slow edit warring' of which there is no such thing.
• Swapping sources is largely irrelevant, you kept restoring a similar version.
• In your reverts you told me to "see talk" in the edit summaries, however you didn't actually bring it to the talk page until afterwards.
• An editor somewhere apparently made the absurd comparison of Cosby and Hitler. Since then you've brought this up in every other discussion, including accusing @Sundayclose: of holding this view in the last ANI thread. WP:BATTLEGROUND talk page behavior like that has earned you numerous warnings.LM2000 (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is tedious and obnoxious. Requesting an editwar block. --Tarage (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

In fact, I would even go so far as to say this is an SPA. Nearly every edit they have made has been in this space. --Tarage (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

IP is static, has been active since December and as far I can tell every edit they've made has been related to the Cosby scandal. Talk page discussions invariably seem to go off the rails like this.LM2000 (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • • Hello LM2000 This good faith editor will make things very simple for you, you did not go to talk as you were invited and new information was being posted, it is a fact that your crony editor is now doing reverts to echo your own little Spanish inquisition of fellow good faith editors. As one said before there are crony editors who seem to want to run certain articles and wish to block editors they disagree with. Feel free to come here and moan all you want to...the interest here is to improve Wikipedia articles. there is no interest in participating in your weird efforts at a kangaroo court...as stated go to Cosby talk and any differences can be worked out there. Yep the 'Hitler' editor still wants an anti-Cosby blog as an RS. This good faith editor will stick with RS such as the NYT and encyclopedia standards...hope to see you in Cosby talk and not just hear you parrot your crony based 'This is not a 'newspaper' bit. Sincerely A Contributor66.235.36.153 (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If this IP was a registered editor, he'd be indeffed for this behavior. So instead it's a 2 year block, limited really, only because you shouldn't indef an IP. Anyway, looking back through this editor's previous 14 months of edits, it's all the same: edit warring, insulting other editors, and treating Wikipedia like a battleground. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Abusive thread at the Ref Desk talk page

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

---

Could an admin please look at this thread at the Ref Desk Talk page? I suggest that it is titled inappropriately, starts off abusively and currently ends in mockery of the editor. My attempt to close has been rebuffed. 72.21.225.66 (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Meh. Bugs is big enough to look after himself; everyone appears to be having fun; it'll burn itself out by bedtime. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

My take. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Jakiobofo9876

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

---

So, I observed one of the wierdest things ever on Wikipedia-A new user, Jakiobofo9876 registered, but within 2 minutes he made a new account, Jakiobofo219876. Any tips on what this is? 96.237.20.186 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that - maybe they just wanted to change their username and didn't know how? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 19:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

 Note: OP was blocked by Favonian for block evasion --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:2601:2C3:C202:D6E0:5861:2F13:65EA:504 - vandalism and disruption on many 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.

---

The user 2601:2C3:C202:D6E0:5861:2F13:65EA:504 (talk · contribs) is consistently vandalizing many pages. Their edits aren't constructive and they have been asked to refrain from such edits on their talk page. In the summary of undoing their edits, it has been stated for them to user the sandbox to play around and continuously asked the user not to continue with their edits. Their only edits on Wikipedia have been to vandalize and disrupt several pages by altering the timelines. Kelege (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism-only IP who seems to have a vendetta against The Real Housewives (I don't like the franchise either, but...). In all seriousness, s/he even carried on the vandalism after being notified of this ANI discussion, so I think a block would be in order. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

GAMTWMV

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

---

GAMTWMV (talk · contribs) has a WP:CIR issue. They made their first edit on 30 September 2016 and their talk page is full of deletion notices. And already they are new page patrolling. They are putting CSD tags on some clearly notable topics:

• Daniel Zeaiter (diff) — Meets WP:NFOOTY
• Lukáš Zevl (diff) — Meets WP:NBADMINTON
• Rodrigo Steimbach (diff) — Meets WP:NOLYMPICS

Users should not be new page patrolling when a) They have had an account for 10 days, b) when they have created multiple non-notable pages themselves and c) When they don't understand basic notability policies.

— Yellow Dingo (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

S/he has since been warned by Mais oui. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• It would have been nice if someone had previously dropped {{first article}}, or one of the other welcome messages on them. I've given them that one now, in the hope of providing a little education.Never mind, I just failed to find it in the history, they did get one and removed it. I'll leave my new one there, as it's clear they could benefit from reading about WP. There are also at least a couple of rather questionable edits[203][204], but they were quickly self-reverted. I agree that they don't seem to be ready for NPP. Murph9000 (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've directed him to WP:NSPORT for the issues surrounding notability of sportspeople. As it's not immediately obvious why Daniel Zeaiter would be notable enough from the 1 line stub. Joseph2302 10:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• True but one should not be NPP if they don't know about WP:SNG's like WP:NSPORT. - — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• They also probably shouldn't be doing NPP when their own articles are frequently being nominated for speedy deletion. Would support a topic ban from NPP on that basis. Joseph2302 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Dawnseeker2000 AWB 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.

---

‎Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using AWB contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:MINOR, and continues to do so [205][206] despite objections from other users [207][208], in violation of WP:AWB#Rules of use. Please review. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see nothing wrong per say with the edits they seem non-obtrusive in my opinion. I'm not sure what the issue is you seem to have with these edits. The date ones are per WP:MOS which seems fine. Are the Https:// ones really necessary? No. Do they do any harm? Also see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 09:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The community requires demonstrable consensus for changes to be rolled out with the aid of automated tools. Objections have been made at some length (see links above), and appear to have been ignored. Burninthruthesky (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I see the OP repeatedly claiming that Dawnseeker has been "warned" about marking edits as minor, but it's obvious that it was friendly advice encouraging Dawnseeker to mark more edits as minor, not a criticism or warning about making edits "contrary to" WP:MINOR (which explicitly discourages use of the function when in doubt). This mistake was corrected by Dawnseeker the first time, but Burninthruthesky appears to have ignored this as he does the same above. I dislike piped links as much as the next guy, but this seems to be a serious failure on the part of Burninthruthesky. The brief exchange on Dawnseeker's talk page was needlessly hostile, especially given how much of a non-issue this is (Dawnseeker is apparently piping no more than one or two links per day), and now Burninthruthesky has needlessly escalated it to ANI. I say close this discussion as pointless bickering over a non-issue that has been inaccurately (and perhaps deliberately) painted as something multiple users have criticized Dawnseeker for on several occasions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The two edits linked are essentially good edits in accordance with MOS: yes, Dawnseeker would have been forgiven for marking them as minor, but taking someone to ANI for not marking two edits that look minor as "minor edits" is absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

... And then I had to go and look into it a bit further. Roughly 2/3 of Burninthruthesky's article edits have "reverted" or "undid" in their edit summaries, and many (most?) of these are inappropriately marked as "minor". Edits that other users are likely to oppose are never "minor", and reverts of another user's edits should be assumed to be opposed by that user. This is actually a significant breach of common practice regarding WP:MINOR; what Dawnseeker has been doing in not marking edits as minor is not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's appropriate to mark reverts as minor when (and only when) the edit being reverted is vandalism. I took a quick look through those, and I haven't seen any that violated the policy in that way. Did you? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• WTF, according to the OP someone can be dragged to ANI for not marking edits as minor? What kind of crazy is that? EEng 17:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not see a bases for your complaint. I don't see a WP:NOTBROKEN violation. If you are talking about the template links, those are part of the AWB's general fixes and are automatic when editing with the AWB. The purpose of AWB is to semi-automate the tedious or repetitive editing tasks that would be considered minor. WP:MINOR is not a policy or guideline, but is a help page on how to mark edits as minor. I also don't see anything that violate WP:AWB#Rules of use as the main thrust of the edits that you linked to as evidence were not insignificant or inconsequential. —Farix (t | c) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Changing http to https is a long standing request for many links. This has nothing to do with NOTBROKEN. Moreover, I see a lot of value in these edits line section header naming, fix unbalanced parenteheses, typo fixing etc. A lof of thee things are not done automatically not even semi-automatically and it's clear the editor reviews every edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• This seems baseless to me. You're never in violation of WP:MINOR for not marking edits as minor, and consensus has already been attained that it's worth editing pages just to change HTTP to HTTPS. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made no mention of changing http to https. The first diff I linked above changed (amongst other things) "Avro Canada Jetliner" to "Avro Canada C102 Jetliner" without any apparent justification of improving the article text. How is that compliant with WP:NOTBROKEN? Burninthruthesky (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That portion of the edit (Avro Canada Jetliner → Avro Canada C102 Jetliner) was to include the aircraft designation. The article titles that we have for other aircraft in that series include it:

• Avro Canada CF-100 Canuck
• Avro Canada CF-103
• Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
• Avro Canada TS-140
• Avro Canada VZ-9 Avrocar

A lot of the time the link changes/replacements boil down to uniformity. Dawnseeker2000 19:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

this thread seems much to do about nothing. I suggest it be closed and op trouted. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you explain the scope of these article title changes, and where you obtained consensus for them? Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I smell fish... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD clearly states you don't need consensus for moves or changes that are unlikely to be controversial. That you are complaining about his method of change doesn't make the title change itself controversial. That is part of the normal editing process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus." If there is consensus for a programme of edits to add aircraft designators, all well and good – just give me a link and we're done. If that is the case I still don't get why designators are being added and removed (Pacific) in this edit. This still looks to me like fixing links because they point to redirects. I have to go now. Burninthruthesky (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If you take issue with the nature of the changes, ANI is not the place to do that. Given that no-one else seems to agree with your characterization of the behavioral issues, I think a rather soft and slightly scaly boomerang might be in order. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but those edits looked useful as they added more information in the links and someone might know the craft by the nickname, and pointing to the article instead of the redirect didn't hurt anything. To my eyes, they are uncontroversial, beneficial edits. If you disagree, revert, go to the talk page and discuss the merits. The merits are independent of the method. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Perceived legal threat made by 173.238.81.233

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

---

In an edit summary on an edit to Nicholas Gruner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 173.238.81.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stated here This is slander, actionable by law. Jim1138 (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a dynamic IP which geolocates to Gruner's area. Looks like a pretty clear legal threat to me, but we can't NLT indef an IP. Let us know if the article continues to be edited disruptively, though, and a rangeblock may be appropriate. Miniapolis 23:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 from Balajimcat25

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

---

Please see this and this for legal threats against editors editing about some Tamil Nadu/Karnataka topic, made by Balajimcat25. Just notifying here, since it should be done if possible WP:NLT-violations. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dealt with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

GomerOzDubar Hoax?

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Although I've taken this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GomerOzDubar, I agree with User:Yintan that this is a hoax. Didn't have time last night to check, but Yintan points out another version[209] with a different bio. It isn't just that the subject isn't notable, I see no evidence to suggests he exists. There's a website[210] offering a preorder of a book that you can't preorder, and a Facebook page[211] promoting our article. Note that the source for his wealth given in the article is this] which is actually about Befimmo. The article's creator is temporarily blocked for removing the AfD template. I am considering indefinitely blocking the editor and nuking the article as a hoax but would like other comments first. Doug Weller talk 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Just found yet another version which was added to the Pullout disambig page a few months ago[212]. It's a hoax. Or deliberate vandalism, if you prefer. Blocking and nuking sound fine to me. Yintan  09:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• • User:JzG deleted it as a hoax. But it was still a blue link, puzzling until I discovered that a sockpuppet of Mollymaybach (talk · contribs), the article's creator, had recreated it. Mrs.maybach (talk · contribs) and Mollymaybach indeffed, article deleted again and salted. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Note: JzG and Doug Weller Recently created as Abrakadabr by likely sock User:Lexington Kromwell. More nonsense at The Criss Cross of Simon. Deletion and blocking is in order. Might need a checkuser to sniff out further socks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Opened a sockpuppet investigation on this requesting a CheckUser to check for sleepers. Let's make sure no other hoaxes were made and missed by us! -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 aka User:Little Silas aka User:2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/POV-pushing at Winsor McCay

2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk · contribs) aka Little Silas (talk · contribs) aka 2602:306:3134:6180:848e:9e67:8ee5:670a (talk · contribs) has been altering the Winsor McCay to reflect a POV that McCay was born on a certain date or in a certain order before his siblings. John Canemaker, McCay's most prominent biographer, goes into detail about why McCay's birthdate is uncertain in the second edition of his Winsor McCay: His Life and Art (doesn't appear to be available on GBooks, but I've quoted it ad nauseam at User talk:Little Silas). All of this is detailed in the article itself, but said user continues to push this WP:OR/WP:SYNTH stuff, as they have for over a year now (and have even introduced at Talk:Winsor McCay an undocumented theory that McCay was born in 19661866, supported by not one source).

You mean 1866? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with this incessant disruption? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Despite having been warned, the editor in question is now engaging in an edit war. Re: "They are simple facts directly cited to Canemaker"—I've already shown this to be false at User talk:Little Silas. Canemaker goes into detail why a birthdate cannot be determined. Little Silas knows this. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey is making false claims of OR, POV, and edit warring. I attempted to insert two simple facts into the article: 1) that Winsor McCay was his parents' firstborn child, and 2) that his sibling Arthur was his younger brother. Both facts are found in two important sources: Canemaker(2005) and Bien(2011). These are sourced facts, not OR, and I made no attempt to interpret them. And I put nothing in the article about McCay's date of birth. Curly "the jerk" Turkey doesn't like, or doesn't understand, the possible implications of these facts, so he claims that they are actually contradicted by the sources, which is absurd. His false claim can be easily dismissed by simply reading one page in either source. Any POV problem here belongs to Curly "the jerk" Turkey. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• The above manure has been refuted repeatedly at User talk:Little Silas. Arthur was born in 1868, while Winsor was born in either 1867, 1869, or 1871, which can't be determined for reasons Canemaker details on page 22 of his book, which User:Little Silas has demonstrated to have read. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I made no reference at all in the article to McCay's birth year. I am mystified why Curly "the jerk" Turkey thinks that I did. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Winsor cannot be Arthur's older brother unless he was born before 1868. Let's stop pretending—we've been over and over and over this, and you're even editwarring over it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey just might be on to something about 1868, but I'm just interested in what the sources have to say. Canemaker calls Winsor the “firstborn” (p22) and the “eldest son” (p24), while Bien (p123) calls him “the oldest son”, and refers to Arthur as his "younger brother". It can't get any clearer than that: Arthur McCay was Winsor's younger brother. Both sources say so, repeatedly. What this might mean for Winsor's disputed birthdate is anyone's guess, but these sourced facts speak for themselves. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Canemaker takes great pains to demonstrate why McCay's birthdate cannot be determined, and there is no reason to call Arthur a "younger brtoher" or Winsor an "older brother" when it's already clear they are children of the same parents. Your goal is to push an earlier birthdate, which you've been pushing for over a year—including trying to obliterate the other dates from the article, and continued to editwar over it (until an admin stepped in). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• When are they going to remake this film? And totally ruin it? Doc talk 09:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Hopefully never. Curly "the shithead" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's safe to say we've not seen eye-to-eye, but you're signature did make me chuckle! Got to agree with you here. Either someone blocks the anon or makes the page protected. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute with conduct issues arising from it. Often resolving the content dispute in a civil way causes the conduct issues to subside. Read the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is here because of the incessant behaviour and the POV/OR/SYNTH issues. The "content dispute" has carried on for well over a year, with Little Silas slipping in their POV/OR/SYNTH under two IPs. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: an admin has stepped in before "rev OR" that Little Silas had added. Is OR to be upgraded to "content dispute" status? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to misrepresent my edits as OR, when I simply introduced two brief sourced facts, without comment or interpretation. And Curly "the jerk" Turkey continues to carry-on about Winsor McCay's birth year, which I never mentioned in the article.

More troubling, however, are his false claims of "incessant disruption" extending "for well over a year". I first attempted to edit the McCay article over the course of a week or two in June 2015. I then ignored it for well over a year, until a few days ago. On Oct 2 (05:22), I inserted the sentence "Winsor was the first of three McKay children", and the phrase "Winsor's younger brother Arthur", with sources for both.

Two days later, on October 4 (03:20), after a routine exchange about date-range formatting, Curly "the jerk" Turkey suddenly went ballistic and reverted all of my edits, calling them "OR bullshit" and threatening "to take this shit to WP:ANI? I'm reverting all this horseshit." I restored only the two brief disputed edits at 05:03 & 06:00, pointing out that they were sourced facts, not OR. Unfazed, Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted them again (07:32), with the command to "stop the horseshit now." I restored them at 07:42, explaining that "You are disrupting these edits with false claims of OR." He then reverted my edits yet again (07:46), with the kiss-off comment "You've been reported. Have fun with your block." So, I restored my edits twice (first, 2 edits from his mass deletion), with valid explanation, while Curly "the jerk" Turkey reverted and threatened 3 times, with false claims of OR. That's the extent of his "edit war."

And clearly Curly "the jerk" Turkey's charge of "incessant disruption" lasting "for over a year" is ridiculous, since I ignored the article for more than a year, and the current dispute is confined to barely 4 hours on October 4. What Curly "the jerk" Turkey calls "incessant disruption" is just anything that threatens his POV.

This complaint by Curly "the jerk" Turkey is based on distortions and downright lies. His statements cannot be trusted. He is cynically using ANI as a weapon against an editor he disagrees with. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

And that "POV" would be ...? We know what yours is—that despite the source you cite saying McCay's birthdate cannot be determined (and why, in detail, documented in the article), you insist on one particular date, and hammer away at it with superfluous language such as "eldest son" and "younger/older brother". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• I do not insist on one particular date, and I said nothing about his birth year in the article. All references here to his year of birth have been made by Curly "the jerk" Turkey. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I've already linked to your edit changing the birthdate to 1867 and the ensuing editwar that an admin had to put a stop to. The only reason to add superfluous language such as "elder/younger brother" or "first son" is to reinforce the idea that 1867 was his birthdate—which is your goal and your only reason for being on Wikipedia. Round and round and round we go ... Oh, let's not forget that Robert McClenon inists this is all about a birthdate, which you now deny. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Canemaker(2005) and Bien(2011), the principal sources, both say McCay was born in 1867, but that wasn't good enough (way back in June 2015) for Curly "the jerk" Turkey. I don't necessarily agree with Canemaker and Bien, but I keep my opinions out of the article. I'm interested in trying to reduce the ridiculous uncertainty surrounding McCay's birth year (anywhere from 1866 to 1871, and beyond), not in specifying any particular year. But I make a point of keeping this interest out of the article, by not mentioning McCay's birth year at all. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Canemaker details on page 22 of his book why Winsor McCay's birthdate cannot be determined to be 1867, 1869, or 1871. On the same page he tells us Arthur McCay was born on 1868. This is all in paragraphs 3–4 of Winsor McCay#Family history. There is no reason to call Arthur Winsor's "younger brother" or to call Winsor the "eldest son" in the article—the article makes it amply clear that they were sons of the same parents. Wikipedia cannot prefer the 1867 birthdate, even if particular authors do. The only reason to include superfluous language such as "older/younger brother" or "eldest son" is to POV-push a preferred date that the most prominent source tells us: "The exact date and place of birth of the child who became Winsor McCay are uncertain because of lack of documentation." (Canemaker 2005, p. 22). Read through the edit history of the Winsor McCay article and you'll see User:Little Silas and his IPs detailing how they came to the personal conclusion that McCay "seems" to have been born in 1867. This WP:OR/WP:SYNTH cannot be classified as a "content dispute". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these three accounts are Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts focused entirely [213][214][215] on this POV-pushing/OR/SYNTH ("Silas" is a nom de plume of Winsor McCay's). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do I detect a desperate attempt to move the goalposts? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Goalposts", because this is so obviously a game to you. Nothing has changed, including your disruptive behaviour. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Possibilities for Closure

I suggested that this is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. User:CurlyTurkey, on my talk page, objects that this characterization too often derails ANI discussions. (At least, that is I think what CurlyTurkey says.) Rather than have this discussion first derailed and then archived to nowhere, I suggest some sort of resolution. First, if this really is about a date of birth, and about edit-warring over a date of birth, in view of how long it has been going on, the two editors can be sent to request formal mediation, where a skilled mediator will cut through their antagonism and get to the issue of the date of birth. Second, the article can be fully protected for a month to force them to discuss on the talk page. I am not optimistic about that and do not recommend it, because I think that a third party may be needed. Third, both editors can be warned that incivility is not permitted and that future incivility and future edit-warring will result in blocks (and that the first block should be at least 72 hours, because some editors think that a 24-hour block is cheap). Fourth, I don’t have a fourth alternative, but maybe someone else does. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Better idea: someone take an actual look at what's going on. This is not a content dispute. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Another Possibility for Closure: First, there is so a content dispute, which has to do with the birth date of the subject. If there weren’t, the filing party could simply leave the edits alone. Insisting at length that there is no content dispute does not change the fact that there is a content dispute. Second, however, there are conduct issues. I see incivility on both sides. Third, there is an unnecessary use of IP editing, since we have agreement that Little Silas and 2602.306.3134.6180.* are the same. I suggest that the article be semi-protected for six months because there is no reason for Little Silas to edit logged out. Fourth, if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense. Fifth, a community interaction ban should be imposed between them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• "if Curly Turkey thinks that there is no content dispute, they can just ignore the birth date nonsense."—You're acting as Little Silas and I were disputing preferred birthdates—which only demonstrates that you've given the evidence no more than a cursory glance, if that. Pause for thirty seconds to read through the evidence and you'll see how ignorant, ridiculous, and disruptive these subsections are. If you can't do even that much, then you have no business here. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Like Robert McClenon, I am unable to evaluate the details in this report. However, it is unhelpful to derail the report with banal suggestions about mediation between a known-good established editor and an SPA with shifting IPs. As far as I can see, in 15 months the SPA has done nothing but attempt to inject unimportant and challenged details regarding which child was born first diff. The events took place 130 years ago so such details are unimportant and likely to be unknown. Does anyone have a suggestion for how to deal with this? I'll try to follow Winsor McCay for a while but am unlikely to be much use since I'm not going to track down and examine the sources which CT has mentioned—indeed, I think that would be a waste of time since we can be very confident that CT is correctly reporting what the sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• You can never be confident about the veracity of Curly "the jerk" Turkey's statements, unless you trouble yourself to check the sources: Canemaker(2005) p22, and Bien(2011) p123. To simply assume that he is being accurate is grossly unfair. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'ts not just an assumption, it's a reasonable conclusion based on previous experience with the editor and with Wikipedia. The main point, however, is that edits from an WP:SPA that focus on trivia such as which of three children were born first (130 years ago) are known to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I can mail scans of the relavant pages to anyone who wants them if the material already extensively quoted is not sufficient. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Call it what you want, it is an assumption, and an obviously biased one at that. And if my two small disputed edits were simply "unhelpful trivia", Curly "the jerk" Turkey would not have resorted to false claims of OR when he removed them. He is aggressively opposed to these simple facts because they threaten his POV concerning McCay's birth year. I have my own opinion on the subject, but I've made a point of keeping it out of the article. I made no reference whatsoever to McCay's birth year in my recent article edits. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• They're not "unhelpful trivia", they're persistent POV-pushing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, which is why I'm requesting to have you blocked. You have yet to state what my supposed "POV concerning McCay's birth year" is supposed to be, given I "prefer" none. I hope noboby else will be as dense as Robert McClenon to fall for that transparent nonsense. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• We can hope that an admin will take the time to wade through this and stop the nonsense, but there has been too much back-and-forth for that to be likely. I have now read enough of the discussion to work out what it is about. The SPA's motivation was made clear at Talk:Winsor McCay#Winsor McCay's 150th Birthday: "So Winsor McCay was born on September 26, 1866, nearly 9 months after his parents' marriage on January 8." That follows after a few lines of argument aka WP:OR. The SPA may be correct and is welcome to publish their conclusion at another website, however Wikipedia will have to use the same vagueness as the sources. As I mentioned above, the fundamental point is that an exact year of birth from 130 years ago is trivia, and attempts to push a line will be stopped. Unfortunately CT will have to endure the issue for a while longer—a calm approach will get the best results. Perhaps the SPA may like to turn their talents to determining Shakespeare's exact year of birth. Johnuniq (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Virtually every biographical article on Wikipaedia leads with the birth year, so getting it right is hardly trivia. And there is already no doubt that Shakespeare was born in exactly 1564, since his birth is recorded in the Stratford parish register, so your fatuous and oh-so-clever dismissive comment is nonsense. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you. Persistent WP:OR POV-pushing is a behaviour issue, not a content issue, so let's hope someone gets around to plugging this disruptive single-purpose SPA. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not "pushing a line." I confine my opinions to the talk page, where they are permitted. (WP:NOR: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.") I avoid expressing my opinions in the article, and I made no reference to McCay's birth date in my recent edits. I have no expectation of ever changing the current dog's breakfast of possible (and impossible) birth years that leads the McCay article. Embarrassment and ridicule will have to do that. I just think that a few simple sourced facts (e.g. "Winsor McCay had a younger brother who was born in 1868.") would help interested readers understand the issue, and perhaps draw their own conclusions. Why suppress pertinent facts? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia, that's known as WP:SYNTH—the desire to provide true facts to push unsourced information. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds like I'm now being accused of a thought crime, for having a forbidden hidden agenda behind a couple of thoroughly sourced simple facts. That's quite a leap from a baseless, disproven claim of OR. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • No one gives a shit what you "think", so there's no "thought crime". You've repeatedly violated Wikipedia policies. That's a behaviour issue that needs to be dealt with. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• More baseless nonsense from a proven liar. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Recommend a range block and very long semi

On seeing this, which was originally a content dispute, play out, User:Little Silas is unfortunately making it very clear that User:Curly Turkey is mostly right and that they obviously have no intention of being reasonable. Why are they continuing to edit form IP addresses when they have a registered user account? I suggest, first, that the article be semi-protected for at least six months to force them to use their registered account, and, preferably, second, that the IP addresses be blocked for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• I have one IP, which changes occasionally at the whim of AT&T. I think it's been been stable since May. I edit very little, and the edits are usually small, so I don't bother to log-in unless I'm doing something more substantial, which is rare. Is logging-in now mandatory? And finally, what "personal attacks" are you referring to? >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • "I edit very little"—yes, we know. Yours is a WP:Single-purpose account. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Proven liar" is a personal attack, unless you can prove your ability to read minds, since a statement is only a lie if it is not only false but is known to be false. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Every now and then I encounter an editor whom I try to assume good faith of and to defend until the editor proves the case against themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• How about my other question. Is logging-in now mandatory? >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• As you know, the answer is no. What you are missing is that it is also not compulsory for established editors to waste hours repeating obvious policy issues to single-purpose accounts. If you stick to your Little Silas (talk · contribs) account people might be willing to spend a little more time explaining basics on your talk, but doing that with a shifting IP (albeit, slowly shifting) is a double waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• My activities have not been single-purpose. As I explained, I tend to make a small number of small edits through my IP. These include a few attempts to edit the McCay article (October 1-4), as well as edits to several other articles: [216] If this list indicates any "single-purpose", it is dealing with ANI over the last few days, which is definitely not my preference. >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

unless you can prove your ability to read minds—hardly need to talk about "reading minds". To be a liar, you first have to tell a lie.

Update—Little Silas is playing more mind games "Provided source reference for fact that has been in the article, unsourced, for several years."—to udermine my credibility by copy-pasting a ref that sources four sentences to the first sentences, trying to make it look like the first sentence was "unsourced". This behaviour's not going to stop. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁&nsees a dark motivebsp;¡gobble! 07:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• This was just a mistake, not a dark conspiracy to undermine Curly "the jerk" Turkey's credibility. I added a source reference, not noticing that there already was one near the end of the next line. I apologized, saying "Sorry. It was so far away that I missed it." >>> 2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's funny how your "mistake" fits so well into your established pattern of behaviour. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• It's funny how Curly "the jerk" Turkey sees a dark motive, even where there isn't one. It was a simple mistake, and I apologized within an hour. >>>2602:306:3134:6180:F9F4:5056:ED2:34D3 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The whole reason for your single-purpose account is to play these games. It was no "mistake". Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Users adding references to Paolo Rampini die cast books

There are multiple IP that add in the "References Cited" section, several books of "Paolo Rampini" on diecast subjet. This users are adding the links also in the italian wikipedia. If you insert "Paolo Rampini" (with inverted commas) in the search box you will find 25 pages with this books. There are tecniques to block this advertizing users and clean the pages?--Arosio Stefano (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

IPs adding these (and nothing else):

• 37.176.229.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 93.68.207.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.114.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.57.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 31.157.192.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.176.134.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2.43.27.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 37.159.39.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Defo looks like spamming to me. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm happy to start cleaning them up. For prevention, I'm not aware of anything other than the spambot, which is (afaiaa) for links, not text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

All done. Edit filter is the only obvious way to fix this if it continues. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 93.68.234.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 12:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Add 31.157.41.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Any chance of an edit filter? Guy (Help!) 10:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Having a look at the possibility of a filter now - testing at Special:AbuseFilter/773 for a little bit to see what we're up against -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Spamming confirmed

I think [217] removes any residual uncertainty. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused. How does this prove it is spam? I see a valid reference. Google books also found other books that use in their own bibliographies.

• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0-_tBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA124&dq=%22The+Golden+Book+of+Model+Cars%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Golden%20Book%20of%20Model%20Cars%22&f=false
• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=9OMTItsyCSoC&pg=PA121&dq=%22The+Golden+Book+of+Model+Cars%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Golden%20Book%20of%20Model%20Cars%22&f=false

Is there something about Rampini that is forbidden?  Stepho  talk  12:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple shifting IPs and changing the apelling to evade a filter? That is classic spamming. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Agreeing with Guy on this; also consider that the books are being added as general references, not inline references, to articles which are already verified - there's no enhancement to the quality of the articles by the addition. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Threat by one editor against another

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

---

I saw it here on my watchlist. diff

I am not involved in the leadup; but I did put a TW warning on the editors Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I left a message on his talk page. He isn't very active and hasn't been blocked before so I'm hoping that will be enough with both of us saying something. I was polite but let him know he could be facing a block if it continues. I also put a note on his talk page. Anytime you report someone here, you need to let them know. There is a template at the top of the page. I left a short note that should do the job already. I think he just blew a gasket over the IP vandelism, it wasn't like it was a content discussion. Still not excusable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis for looking into it, and for notifying the offending editor of this ANI. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Anonymous IP adding ethnic categories to a wide range of articles

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

An anonymous IP appears to be adding various ethnic categories to a wide range of articles. Here is their contributions page [218]. There is no way to determine the accuracy because no rationale has been provided on each article. Also, I am guessing these are irrelevant anyway unless the subjects themselves claim an ethnicity - or it is an issue related to their biography. So per WP:BLP I am engaged in rolling back all such edits. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The IP user has continued to add unsourced claims to biographical articles after being made aware of this complaint, so I've now blocked them for one month. This follows previous blocks of 31 hours and 1 week. His edit here gives the impression that it is not just unreferenced but completely made up. (I checked some of the available sources). See details on their talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Constant uncivil behavior from a single-purpose user

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

HyeSK (talk · contribs)'s only purpose on Wikipedia is to advance what he sees as promotion of Western Armenian spelling in various articles, where they are largely irrelevant. His edits have been reverted in Yerevan, Gyumri by several users. Now he continues reverting my edits on Akdamar Island despite the fact that I've added reliable source countering his baseless claims. In a related discussion he called me "a nobody" in response to my calls to "Cite reliable sources or leave". --Երևանցի ^talk 17:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The dispute has been running for some time. It was previously at WP:AN3, on August 8. I am tempted to warn User:HyeSK that he may be blocked if he makes any more reverts about Western Armenian spelling prior to getting a clear talk page consensus in his favor. Though I know nothing about Western Armenian, the discussion thread here looks like a rather complete analysis, and the thread includes some experts, so if that thread didn't end up with support for HyeSK it seems unlikely that he will get consensus anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone neutral to the issue does need to tell HyeSK in strong words that he cannot repeatedly restore disputed content without providing sources, his current methodology will never result in that content remaining, he is wasting everyone's time, and in the end it will result in him being blocked. I don't think he understands the basic concept that this is not Wikipedia written in Western Armenian, so adding a "Western Armenian" variant to a place name written in Armenian lettering and nowhere near the zone of Western Armenian speakers is wrong. He also does not seem to understand WP:NAME - the worst example of his misconception of this was his repeated attempt at the renaming of Duduk [219]. Very few of HyeSK's edits stay unchallenged and remain in place, and it is almost a single-issue account. HyeSK did try to raise the issue using mediation [220] - perhaps if that had been allowed to have gone ahead, HyeSK would be now making useful edits on other areas and gone beyond this one issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield. (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is nuts. I have provided factual sources on my claims while no one else has. Please review the talk pages again. Why am I the one told not to make changes when I have supported them? I strongly request a review of the talk pages (specifically Gyumri). Also, Yerevantsi's source is from a poet, who attended a school which taught in Western Armenian. Yerevantsi's source is an irrelevant joke. HyeSK (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are the three (3) sources I posted on the Gyumri talk page. Also, it should be noted; a Wikipage, in Armenian, exists with the spelling I wish to add - 1.) https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D4%B3%D5%AB%D6%82%D5%B4%D6%80%D5%AB, 2.)http://www.agos.com.tr/am/hvotvadzi/12683/hahasdani-aghn-yes-giwmri, 3.)http://www.araraddaily.com/Araradnew/DailyNews-%D5%B0%D5%A1%D5%B5%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%AF%D5%A1%D5%B6-%D5%AC%D5%B8%D6%82%D6%80%D5%A5%D6%80-Lebanese-Political-News/3146/news/19/Lebanese-Armenian-News/

This process is a bit absurd.HyeSK (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister casting aspersions

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

---

SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) continues to repeatedly cast WP:ASPERSIONS regarding my edits in a public forum, namely in multiple AfD discussions. The user began by mischaracterizing my prod removals as "mass removed", which is uncivil in nature and suggests bad faith. I have stated rationales for the prod removals in edit summaries (e.g. diff), but the bad faith aspersions just continue. It is also inappropriate to scold users for prod removals, because as per WP:DEPROD, no rationale is required. However, I typically provide a rationale in edit summaries anyway.

I routinely patrol prods listed at Category:All articles proposed for deletion. The nominator proposes a great deal of articles for deletion using prod. As such, it's natural that I will happen upon some of them. As stated in This edit, the user erroneously assumes that the prod removals are based upon my accessing their user contributions page, but this is not the case. Even worse, in the above-mentioned edit, the user publicly characterized my edits as "bad-faith removals".

At This edit, the user very inappropriately refers to my prod removals as seeming like "personal attacks". Nothing could be further from the truth. My edits constitute nothing of the sort, nor is this my intent.

I access prodded articles at the All articles proposed for deletion category page. I should not have to repeatedly explain this or defend my character in multiple AfD discussions. Note that I have also deprodded articles that were prodded by other users during my editing session today. Furthermore, my edits are educated, and are based upon article potential, source searches, and other variables.

• This user has a history of casting aspersions and behaving inappropriately at AfD, and in other areas of Wikipedia. Below are links to past ANI discussions regarding the user:

• User:SwisterTwister
• Ignoring consensus
• User:SwisterTwister's reviewing issues
• Revisit of User:SwisterTwister's reviewing issues
• User:SwisterTwister U5 nominations

• Regarding this user's casting of WP:ASPERSIONS toward me, below are the links and diffs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wade – Link, Diff, Diff
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracode – Link, Diff. Also see This response from another user regarding the aspersions.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badgeville – Link, Diff

– These aspersions really, really need to stop. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yay! WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER has started again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Please see the previous iteration of the anti-ST whinge campaign. I correctly predicted that he would rein in the long-winded rambling, and also correctly predicted that he'd still get dragged to ANI again on some other pretext. At some point the unrelenting persecution is just going to have to stop. Reyk _YO! 08:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no personal animosity; the casting of inappropriate aspersions in multiple public discussion forums is the issue here, and is an example of this user's ongoing problematic behaviors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This is really specialist. We need to start charging the anti-Swister mob rent here :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not "anti" anyone. I am against the repeated casting of aspersions against users on Wikipedia discussion pages. It is wrong. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

An editor brings a valid concern here and gets sarcastic remarks in return. How very professional. Yintan  10:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister continues to accuse editors of personal attacks and hounding when in reality the number of articles they are trying to get deleted each day means that the same editors are likely to deprod/comment on several of their nominations, often with valid criticism. Barely any opposing comment in AfDs started by ST is allowed to pass without 'notes to closing admin' or other comments by ST repeating the same arguments over and over. Personally, I see this as a problem. Attempts at humour here are poorly judged. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• If I made aspersions like you I too would expect to be dragged here ... Infact I would also expect a warning over the bad faith comments too, Just because you patrol tons of articles a day it doesn't give you a free pass to act like a complete dick, ST should know by now that this is a collaborative project and that if he disagrees with someones action he should obviously discuss it with them .... Not make unfounded and rather pointless aspersions on every AFD, Something needs to be done about ST as it's clear his behaviour and attitude is a problem here and should be dealt with instead of this cesspit shrugging everything off as "anti-mob" or whatever. –Davey2010^Talk 09:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I certainly agree that ST is mistaken about people following his contributions specifically. He's an active and prolific spam fighter who PRODs a lot of articles, so naturally he will find a lot of his PRODs declined by the same people even if they're not specifically targeting him. That said, I know how annoying it is to see so many of your well-argued PRODs being declined. Many of these are indeed hopeless cases and it might be worth the prod patrollers developing a better eye for the thinly veiled advertisements he's dealing with, and going a bit lighter on the deproddings. Shortly, the guy is frustrated becuase he thinks he's being pursued, and the unrelenting barrage of (often manifestly invalid) ANI threads is feeding that perception. Have we considered just leaving the guy alone to do his work for a bit, to see if his behaviour improves on its own? Reyk _YO! 09:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I totally agree it would be annoying but to me it's better to first discuss your issues instead of going off on one on every afd, I see where you're coming from anyone would feel that way but again he can discuss it all instead of himself simply digging a bigger hole, Don't get me wrong he does some amazing work and I personally have no issues with the lad but in my eyes the aspersions need to stop, I really don't mean this in a nasty way and as I said I have no issues with him but too me it seems he's going from one extreme to another and I'll admit some of the reports here didn't need to be here, Anyway to cut my ramblings short If he promises to pack it in with the aspersions/bad faith comments and approaches editors in a polite manner from hereon in then I don't see the need to take it further, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Reyk: I must say you caught me by surprise when you said: I know how annoying it is to see so many of your well-argued PRODs being declined. You see, I am one of many whose contributions to this project are regularly rejected by editors who believe they are doing the right thing by nominating articles for deletion. I rarely participate in ANI discussions such as this, because from my vantage point there aren’t enough editors willing to add/edit content and spending time in discussions only increases the need for content editors. Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

• @Ottawahitech:- from looking at your recent contributions it does not seem that you are writing the advertising brochures that Swister is PRODding. If you found your contributions nominated primarily by the same handful of editors, I could understand why you might feel personally targeted whether you are or not. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Reyk: can you point me to a single one of ST's prods that is actually well-argued? They're all copy-and-paste long-winded repetitions of WP:NOTNOTABLE with little or nothing specific about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not an administrator, so I cannot refer to the text of PRODS on articles that have been deleted. They'll be the ones with the better rationales. Reyk _YO! 06:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, they are not. I looked through a sample of SwisterTwister's recent deleted prods, of which the following three are representative. One is for a basketball player, one is for a music production company, and one is for a documentary film on Japanese rope bondage techniques. Can you tell me which one is which, just looking at the deletion rationales? (1) "Nothing at all actually substantiating what would be needed for independent notability and substance, because while the article is fille with information, none of it is convincing" (2) "Nothing for actual independent notability and substance and my own searches are not finding better" (3) "Searches are not finding anything better at all, there's hardly actual information here and certainly nothing for suggestive significance, let alone substantial convincing". This is exactly the sort of generic and low-quality rationale I've come to expect from ST. It is no wonder they are getting deprodded. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's completely unfair. I never saw the need to quote the article's title in my prod rationale before; when did that become a rule? I've successfully prodded articles with rationales like "I looked for sources and couldn't find any" many times, and I've certainly never heard that rationale referred to as "generic and low quality". Bizarre. Reyk _YO! 04:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• It is not "unfair" and "bizarre" to expect evidence that the prod nominator has at least considered the specifics of WP:ATHLETE, WP:ORG, and WP:NFILM for these cases, rather than using interchangeable rationales that suggest the opposite. For instance, I would take much more seriously a nomination for an athlete like "has never played a professional game" or a nomination for a film like "No reviews found on rottentomatoes, fails WP:NFILM." I'm not asking for longer nominations, only more specific ones. And if your own nominations are as generic as ST's, maybe you should consider doing better yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with the quality of my nominations, and if you think there is you're welcome to take that up with the deleting administrators. I see no benefit in continuing this conversation. Swister has successfully been driven off the encyclopedia, so it's all academic anyway. Please don't contact me again. Good day. Reyk _YO! 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have restored this section which had been removed by User:213.205.194.178.[221] Thincat (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I take no pleasure in posting ANI reports, and I appreciate Davey2010's reasoned stance herein. If ST would simply stop casting aspersions repeatedly, this would be greatly appreciated. Such commentary does not address concerns that other users have in relation to articles proposed/nominated for deletion, and bogs down discussions with unnecessarily personal statements, rather than actually discussing the topic at hand. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Someone who makes a habit of removing PROD tags needs to accept how it looks to others. A quick look at some of the OP's links shows simple statements of fact with an understandable if possibly invalid conclusion. The linked comments look harmless—why is Northamerica1000 not simply and calmly denying the statements? One of the links ([222]) was given to show that a rationale is typically given in deprod edit summaries. However, that example includes (my emphasis): "added a source demonstrating potential notability". See WP:NPPAFC which shows that unreviewed articles are piling up. Cleaning up is a necessary part of life and a vague feeling that there is potential notability is a pretty dubious reason to add to the pile. Please only deprod articles after serious consideration and a decision that the topic really is notable and that an article should exist. SisterTwister should be thanked for the work done. Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  That is a hugely misguided comment, Johnuniq. Northamerica1000 "simply and calmly" said that Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, source searches are demonstrating notability. Also added a source demonstrating potential notability. And from all of that, you caught only one word, "potential", and built a pretty weak on it. I also gave a really quick look at the same article, and in matter of microseconds I found that Veracode is listed as a leader in the Gartner Magic Quadrant in its field along with IBM and HP. From that piece of evidence, and from my own encounters at AfD, I can conclude that SwisterTwister Afds, Prods and !Votes (always "Delete") on the articles out of their ass. His Afd nomination failure rate is at 30% [223], which means that he creates a huge workload for others. Combined with near-incomprehensible arguments and behavioral quirks such as requests to be consulted on his nominations and aspersion-casting, I'm flabbergasted he hasn't been banned from deletion processes yet. No such user (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Not sure that SwisterTwister's actions at the AfDs rises to the levels described at WP:ASPERSIONS, but it is problematic. Simply asserting that every single source, even from reputable sources like the BBC, CNBC, The New Republic, etc. about a business that isn't negative is "PR" and "advertising" is not how our verifiability policy or how our NPOV policy works. The most egregious example of this is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brit_Morin, where SwisterTwister dismisses a piece from the BBC as "PR" and "advertising". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I had a look at the diffs provided by NorthAmerica, and I think they put us in a bit of a quandary. On the one hand, I don't think they are sanctionable in and of themselves: on the other hand, I don't see anything short of a sanction having any effect on this behavior. It's a problem we've seen elsewhere, and one that does not have a magic bullet solution. In this case, I think a formal admonishment might be in order. As others have pointed out above, ST does a lot of spam-fighting, and they are to be commended for it: but that naturally means a lot of PRODs, which is going to mean many declined PRODs. ST needs to learn to see those in the right spirit, and it is my hope that an admonishment might get them to do so. Vanamonde (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose in principle. PROD and AfDs can be a contentious area, and editor's opinions on what constitutes "promotionalism" vs "legitimate coverage" differ. For example, I largely do not agree with the statement that "PR can be fixed", especially when applied to minor tech companies doing a lot of PR. If PR were to be fixed, that would result in a directory listing. Some editors view such articles as full of "intricate detail" and some as suitable encyclopedia content. For example, see: AfD: Appboy and the continued discussions on the Talk page Talk:Appboy, the AfD of which was initiated by ST.

In summary: these are legitimate differences of opinion. Taking these disagreements to ANI and making the discussions more personal than what they need to be is not productive to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• P.S. -- The opening post, while well argued, struck me a being non-neutral because of its title. A more appropriate headline may have been "Problematic comments by User:ST" instead of what came across as "Look at what ST have done again". Putting "casting aspersions" right in the section heading can come across as casting aspersions itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not agreeing if the available sources are enough to meet notability guidelines is a legitimate difference of opinion. SwisterTwister instead seems to believe that almost all business journalism is "PR" and "paid advertising" including business news articles from the BBC (!!), and will repeatedly badger those who don't share that view on how they're wrong and haven't seriously looked at the sources. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that about a month ago ST was brought to ANI specifically because his !votes were considered short, canned replies. He was also specifically criticised for not actively taking part in the AfD discussion after a nomination and for not rebutting others' !votes. I see that ST has started working on it and he now actively participates. Personally I find this much better than the previous situation. Yet, he keeps getting brought to ANI on some pretext or the other. This is enough to irritate someone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

ST now comments on virtually every other opinion expressed in AfDs he starts, making the same argument over and over, basically just insisting that he has examined all possible sources, provided an analysis of them, and that his opinion is correct, which isn't really helpful. The problem is that he doesn't take other people's views on board and reconsider his nomination, whether that be by ignoring those views or arguing with them all. He has been brought to ANI this time for repeatedly accusing editors of making personal attacks and hounding him without any real justification. If I prodded or AfD'd dozens of articles every day I would expect the same editors to be deprodding them or arguing against me in AfDs, particularly if my nominations were of poor quality. If someone keeps being brought to ANI perhaps people should stop making excuses for them and try to get them to behave in a less contentious manner. --Michig (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, but ... commenting on virtually every other opinion expressed in AfDs is not a violation. If he's right he's right, and if he's wrong he's wrong. Hopefully, if he's right, he'll convince the community to agree with him, and if he's wrong he will not. He, however, is perfectly entitled to his own opinion, right or wrong, and to to express said opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get this derailed into discussing something that is not the subject of this ANI thread, but having an opinion is one thing, flooding AfD discussions with the same argument over and over is another. --Michig (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)--Michig (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't drag keep !voters to ANI with topic ban requests just for badgering and being repetitive on AfD, or for speculating inaccurately regarding other editors' motives. If we did, that would be quite a cull. Reyk _YO! 11:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Another specious argument. ST has not been brought to ANI for badgering and being repetitive, or speculation. This report has nothing to do with that. If a keep !voter (and really, if we can class any editors as habitual keep !voters or delete !voters there really is a problem with them) persisted in making groundless accusations of personal attacks, hounding, and acting in bad faith, I would expect them to be dealt with in the same way. --Michig (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Michig: "if we can class any editors as habitual keep !voters or delete !voters there really is a problem with them" Umm ... no? Editors have their own areas of interest and expertise. If ST mainly participates in AFDs because he comes across articles that he thinks should be deleted, and doesn't go out of his way to !vote "keep" in other AFDs, that's his prerogative. If you can provide evidence that he (or anyone!) has been going around posting delete !votes in as many AFDs as he can, you should present it. It seems from everything that has been said here so far that what usually happens is ST PRODding new articles and when he was reverted he opened AFDs on them -- why should he be expected to "balance this out" with keep !votes elsewhere? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) The "groundless accusations of personal attacks, hounding, and acting in bad faith" all come from his inaccurate speculation that Northamerica1000 was following him around specifically. You brought up the badgering and repetition, then saw fit to mouth off at me for responding. Specious argument indeed. Reyk _YO! 11:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. My initial comment was in response to someone else commenting on his multiple repeated responses in AfDs, which is not the issue that caused this thread to be started. Trying to take it off in a tangent to avoid discussing that issue isn't really helpful. --Michig (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "trying to take it off in a tangent to avoid discussing"? I would encourage you to re-read WP:AGF. I read your comment and responded to what I saw in it -- I didn't have any "ulterior motive" for doing so, and I see no evidence that Reyk is any different. The simple fact is this thread of the conversation started with you criticizing ST for what boils down to him having an opinion and expressing it x number of times in y number of potentially similar AFDs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD. --Michig (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• SwisterTwister has an obvious communication problem. Advise him to work on it. North America1000 I find slightly humourless, very good to have around, but I can see that he would have difficulty in reading SwisterTwister's tortured English.

In spite of what seems like awful communication and shallow rationales, SwisterTwister does not seem to seek, nominate or !vote for deletion inaccurately. http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py?name=SwisterTwister&max=500&startdate=&altname= indicates a quite good accuracy, just with an obvious bias to participating in things needing deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• The statistics are misleading: he has a very high success rate (93% match) because most of his votes are cast in straightforward cases where deletion is inevitable and consensus has already been established by the time he participates. If you limit the statistics only to his nominations, his rate is 61%. To be clear, at AFD, I don't think success is everything: being wrong for the right reasons is more useful to the project than simply going along with the crowd. Rebbing 06:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• As a brief side note, it is worth mentioning that it would be ridiculous to not deprod an article based upon which specific user prodded it, as though if users should first check the article revision history to see who prodded it, and then base their decision-making upon this variable, instead of objective criteria such as source searching. I base my deprods upon research, article potential, and other variables relative to prod rationale.

The reason for this report here at ANI is the manner in which the user continuously makes false claims toward me at multiple AfD discussions, which amounts to repeated, ongoing harassment and the casting of aspersions. Normally I would discuss this with a user directly, but this user has stated in the past that they do not want to communicate directly. The user has engaged in such posting of aspersions in the past, as denoted in this past ANI discussion (see the diffs presented there). At this past ANI, the user did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or other user's concerns there, and instead posted yet more ad hominem statements toward me there that did not address the grievances presented whatsoever.

As it stands now, and in relation to the user's responses at the past ANI denoted, it comes across that ST feels entitled to continuously state false claims against users ad infinitum, as though if it's acceptable. I view it as problematic that the user has not provided any type of response here, and as a potential indicator that these types of behaviors could continue into the future. If the user could at least acknowledge that the community is against such behavior in public discussion forums, that would be a minor improvement.

Since this discussion has gone a bit off-track from my original concerns, below are the recent problematic edits which prompted me to compose this report. As per the previous ANI, this user has demonstrated a pattern of said behaviors. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Casting of WP:ASPERSIONS: links and diffs:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aubrey Wade – Link, Diff, Diff
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veracode – Link, Diff. Also see This response from another user regarding the aspersions.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badgeville – Link, Diff

This is all academic now anyway; Swister has retired. Reyk _YO! 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily: he made similar announcements in April and May; each came during the pendency of an ANI thread voicing concerns about his behavior and interactions with other editors; and each was rescinded shortly after the scrutiny abated. Rebbing 22:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Six-month moratorium on SwisterTwister-related ANI threads

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

---

Complete moratorium on SwisterTwister-related ANI threads for the next six months. Any such thread should be immediately closed and the OP blocked for 24 hours. If this really is that serious of a problem that it merits two or three ANI threads per month, then it should be kicked to ArbCom, as ANI is clearly incapable of dealing with it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support as excellent means of achieving two ends: that of ensuring ST is sanctioned, by impartial parties, for any transgressions, and that of preventing the continuous grapeshot that keeps beng launched at ANI, presumably in the hope that some of it wil hit. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• partial support- minus blocking the OP of subsequent threads. Just speedy close them. This seems like just the thing ArbCom should be handling. An annoying editor who keeps getting unconvincing ANI threads started against them. Clearly a subset of editors strongly think he's a problem but cannot convince a wider audience, partly because the complaints are overblown and partly because ST manages to be annoying in a slightly different way each time. If this does go to ArbCom though, I'd hope their previous pattern of blatantly favouring the inclusionist in similar debates (think KWW) does not continue. Reyk _YO! 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The block is a necessary component, as it would be a preventative one. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Every ANI thread I have seen about ST has raised legitimate concerns and any future thread should be judged on its own merits. --Michig (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear which ones you have seen, but I don't think the majority of ANI-watchers would agree with you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia isn't censored but ANI is? Ridiculous. Yintan  10:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm... what? Censorship? People are pretty sick of the unending stream of SwisterTwister reports, and rejecting them outright unless the dispute is too serious to be dealt with by anyone but ArbCom is ... probably going to wind up happening anyway, whether we enforce a formal moratorium or not. Note also that six-month moratoriums to prevent repeated disruption are pretty common (see Talk:Saint Peter and Talk:Genesis creation narrative), and no one ever seems to call it "censorship". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not allowing people to speak about certain subjects is censorship, yes. Especially if you enforce it by blocking whoever opens his/her mouth. Moratoriums on articles aren't the same as banning a subject from a notice board. Yintan  12:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposal is unworkable as worded. What if someone with no prior interactions with SwisterTwister, or at least with no prior knowledge of their past ANI threads, happens to report them here? The proposal would have us summarily block the hapless reporter. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. All of the recent OPs have been aware of the previous discussions and seemed to want to report them even though they knew people n ANI were sick of it. Of course any block appeal that convincingly made the case that they were unaware of the moratorium would be quickly accepted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"even though they knew people n ANI were sick of it". I find this to be a pretty revealing comment. I am the guy that made the last ANI thread about ST -- I didn't make it because I had a vendetta, I made it because I found SwisterTwister's behavior to be extremely problematic. My thread was promptly pounced on by what appears to be a clique of "ANI watchers" as Hijiri 88 calls them. I think the ANI watchers are the real problem here. Despite having never been involved with any previous SwisterTwister threads, and being an admin in good standing for over a decade, I was immediately accused of bad faith by Hijiri88 and several other users. Why is it that you need to have the imprimatur of a particular clique to raise user behavior issues at ANI? A Train^talk 18:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - What if an admin had a valid concern about ST .... Would love to see that block!, It's not a viable option, I'll admit some of the reports have been bs but in all fairness not all have .... just some. –Davey2010^Talk 11:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone appears to have edited my post to take it out of its original context, so I can't tell if you misread it in that light, but I already said that if anything in the next six months was serious enough to bring up on ANI again, it should be serious enough to request Arbitration. My ArbCom case last year was basically accepted solely on the basis that the same dispute had been brought to ANI four times in the space of about four months -- this one appears to be even more serious! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Support - Hijiri88 - Ah sorry I'm not sure if the post was edited or whether I'd simply misread it ... no idea, But anyway as I've said below we simply cannot handle this as none of can't come to an agreement, I oppose the OP being blocked tho but other than that agree it should be sent to arbcom if desired. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose Yeah, this is a bad idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both sides are at fault at times. ST makes some poor choices at AFD. Other editors get rather nit-picky about other things ST does. I don't think banning discussion is the answer. Sergecross73 msg me 12:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If "ANI watchers" are "sick of" reports about ST, perhaps they should stop watching the drama boards and do something else for a while. Variety is the spice of..., change is as good as... and all that. Keri (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: An another WP:IDONTLIKESWISTERTWISTER moment. But this proposal may be an bad idea. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 13:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support Editors are not made out of sugar. Life is unfair, so you should be able to cope with arguments you do not like. The Banner talk 14:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Support The never ending ANI towards SwisterTwister is getting annoying. If there was an legit problem ANI would of had it fixed by now. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose in principle, regardless of this being geared only toward ST. This would set a poor precedent, silencing users from posting valid concerns to the community at ANI, regardless of the gravitas of said concerns. This also comes across as a very slippery slope, potenially setting a precedent of providing a "free pass" for users to do or say anything, with any valid concerns being punished as a default (e.g. "OP blocked for 24 hours" instantly), instead of being rationally and objectively considered by the community. Forcing users to go through the rigors of composing an arbcom report to address a user problem exacerbates the problem, making even more work for users. Please note that my opinion here, in this "Six-month moratorium" thread only, is based upon principle, and is irrespective of the discussion thread I initiated about ST above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is effectively a get out of gaol free card for SwisterTwister. I'm all for going to ArbCom, but punishing users for raising legitimate concerns will not help. It'll only encourage ST. Besides, what if it's a new problem not serious enough for ArbCom? Adam9007 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose - This is one of the most asinine proposals I've ever seen. This page is not only an open forum to discuss any incidents that may require admin attention, but it is also the primary contact point between the community and administrators. Anyone is, and should be, completely free to bring up any good faith concerns here, period. Keri's comment above is right on point. If you're a non-admin who spends so much time on this page that you're trying to restrict something you think is being discussed too much, you should seriously consider contributing to the project in some more productive way. Swarm ♠ 18:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Keri. My run-in with the ANI regulars after reporting Swister Twister's behavior on this board last week made me want to hand my mop back in. A Train^talk 18:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Alternative proposal

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

---

A moratorium on all reports seems unworkable, as there may be a genuine issue. As an alternative, how about:

1. Any new report not stated in neutral terms and with diffs, will be speedily closed and the filer blocked.
2. Filers may make one statement of complaint and must then leave uninvolved admins to discuss the case on its merits.
3. If the repeat filers will not accept this, it is remitted to ArbCom and no new reports will be accepted until any case is complete.

I think the last is the correct answer, though I am pretty confident ArbCom will also not give the serial complainers what they want so I hold out little hope of them accepting the result of any case. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• So, under this proposal, a user can post a report, but is then forbidden from adding any commentary thereafter? What if a user asks the poster a question? What if the poster changes their mind? How would "neutral terms" be defined? Also, what if a new user files a report but is unaware of ANI protocol, such as providing diffs, etc.? Also, what would constitute a "serial complainer"? Should users who are maligned in discussions on Wikipedia simply take their scolding, regardless of validity or lack thereof, for fear of being blocked or taken to arbcom if they take their complaint to ANI? What if problematic behaviors by a user are ongoing, should one just take it in stride forever? I could be mistaken, but this seems to possibly be connected to the report I filed above, but I take no pleasure in posting ANI reports. I prefer to improve articles, discuss topic notability, and such, in a positive, friendly and collegial fashion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Preliminary support, assuming the non-passage of my broader proposal above. I actually don't have a problem with this, especially if my (more extreme) solution does not pass. I wonder, though, how "not stated in neutral terms" will be enforced, and if any of the recent reports, most of which mainly suffered from frivolity rather than non-neutrality, would have been subject to it.

(Also, is it necessary to formalize "no new reports will be accepted until any case is complete"? Last time I was at ArbCom, any new ANI threads even remotely related to anyone who might have been named as a party in the case were immediately shut down solely because "the case" was already "at ArbCom".)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Kick it to ArbCom Repeatedly opening ANIs on what is essentially the same shit is not going to get a different result. Jbh^Talk 12:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose. Better, but still a dangerous slippery slope. For better or worse, we don't have RfC/U available any longer; and for better or worse, AN/I, the remaining noticeboard for members of the community to bring broad problems with others, has been officially reframed as a place for experienced editors, and not only admins, to provide advice. Yes, diffs are desirable, but so is responsiveness to queries, and I'm afraid that while sympathetic to those who try to keep this noticeboard under control, I have to agree that it isn't fair to then blame people for using it if the task starts to feel overwhelming. This is not ripe for ArbCom, and I doubt SwisterTwister would feel any less beleagured if made the subject of a request for an ArbCom case than they do when being constantly taken to AN/I. There may be a fire behind this smoke, although I'm sure others share my hope that if there is, it will go out soon. It's wrong to officially rule out the possibility, even without a block threat. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There seem to have been quite a few cases recently where an RFC/U would have let the community air their grievances and possibly prevent further drama. ST, Gamaliel, Michael Hardy and Jytdog come to mind. Perhaps it might be a good idea to look at bringing it back, in a very limited capacity? Instead of how it previously just needed two editors to certify the basis of dispute, it would better balance legitimate community need against the reason it was shut down (to prevent witch hunts) if we were to require a consensus at AN, ANI, or Arbcom declining a case and remanding it to RFC/U. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would support a RFC/U like mechanism that can only be initiated by community consensus at AN or ANI. Unlike the old RPC/U it would need some teeth in that blocks, topic bans etc would be potential outcomes. I would also strongly suggest that it be born with something like WP:DS active and it be clerked (By uninvolved admins using DS, not by formally appointed/elected clerks.) to keep it from spinning out of control. (Kind of a community driven ArbCom alternative. It may work or it may not but ANI can not handle anything long term or complex and ArbCom is... welll ArbCom.) Jbh^Talk 16:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've actually been considering proposing an idea like that for some time. The loss of dispute resolution methods like MedCab, WP:RFC/U and WP:WQA, while well-intentioned, has left us with a hole in the types of disputes that the community is no longer able to handle on its own. I think it would be worth coming up with a proposal to retool some of what we've lost to fix the problems with them, and bring them in line with modern Wikipedia standards. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that would be very worthwhile. There needs to be some way the community can handle things which are more difficult than ANI can deal with but does not rise to the level of, or is not worth the time sink/PITA of Arbcom.

I would suggest proposing independent solutions for behavior and content as opposed to anything holistic. For instance the revamped RFC/U, or whatever it is called, which AN/ANI can punt user issues to and some mediation process that can be enforced like the GMO RfC outcome. In that case the community would need to authorize some sort of enforcement provision to be used in areas that do not have DS like was used to enforce the GMO decision.

This is all probably out of scope for this thread but I would be interested in exploring this further. Because lack of good dispute resolution contributes to the poor editing environment so many editors have been complaining about. Jbh^Talk 19:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose There are serious concerns about SwisterTwister's style of editing, and I think that Northamerica1000 was right to bring this to ANI. There's just a bunch of editors who refuse to view SwisterTwister as something besides a perfect editor. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom – I'm afraid this is ripe for ArbCom, because ArbCom is for "intractable disputes that the community is unable to resolve". If the following, gathered only from separate ANI threads in the last year, is not an example of one, I don't know what is: No such user (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

List of ANI threads since Nov 2015

Date ANI Archive Issue Started by Closed Closed by 29 November 2015 906 Should User:SwisterTwister be notifying User:DGG to come to multiple deletion discussions on User:DGG's talk page? I thought we had a strict rule about trying to recruit people to a deletion discussion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Consensus is SwisterTwister should notify DGG per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification NE Ent 29 February 2016 915 SwisterTwister has unanimously decided that all stale drafts in userspace on non-notable topics (even good-faith attempts at creating an article) constitute blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations (which is just what U5 covers). I suggest that SwisterTwister's last 50 or so edits be mass-reverted. This is clearly an inappropriate use of the criterion. 103.6.159.86 A discussion is ongoing on WT:CSD involving some points brought up in this thread. The Voidwalker 29 April 2016 922 User:SwisterTwister.27s_reviewing_issues: I wasn't going to be the one who opens a report but, with another new notice recently posted to their talk page, this needs to be resolved. Mlpearc Closing as no consensus to impliment topic ban at this time. Even those that oppose generally find fault with with ST's methods, and there is a lot for him to read and learn from. Dennis Brown 20 May 2016 924 The ANI in the title was closed less than three weeks ago, and User:SwisterTwister has continued the behavior that led to that ANI without any apparent change. "Patrolled" ~500 pages... Many patrols were unreviewed for apparent shoddiness during this period; swpb Closed as no consensus. Euryalus 30 August 2016 934 SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) has incorrectly stated to users that an interation ban is in effect when no actual formal interaction ban has occured. Northamerica1000 SwisterTwister has been prohibited from imposing interaction bans or keep away orders against other users, ... No topic ban is currently placed upon SwisterTwister preventing them from deletion activities. It is recommended that SwisterTwister take on board the criticisms and advice given to them about their conduct in deletion activities. [...]AfD closes are not considered to be a problem and this discussion is not being taken to ArbCom at this time. Mr rnddude 21 September 2016 934 The user redirected the article twice after consensus at the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majesco (insurance software company) (which the user created as the nominator) was for the article to be kept. Northamerica1000 (Never closed) – 6 October 2016 935 In the past few weeks, SwisterTwister has taken this advice with gusto, to the point that he is now being disruptive at AFD in a whole new way. ST now provides enormous, unformatted walls of text in AFD nominations, PRODs (what he calls his "extensive PRODS", as though this were a virtue), and in discussions. A Train This isn't going anywhere and seems like piling on. Dennis Brown

• Kick it to Arbcom - We clearly cannot come to any agreements with this so IMHO any new reports from hereon in should be speedy closed with the closing editors pointing to Arbcom, I don't particularly wanna go down that route but as a whole we simply can't deal with it so perhaps it's best to send it to a place who can ... kind of... –Davey2010^Talk 15:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to Arbcom - Let's finally close the book on this risible recurrence.--WaltCip (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to Arbcom per the comments above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support - It seems to me after reviewing the many ANI's and closed posts that the community is badgering SwisterTwister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the point that any action he takes is used against him in future ANI proceedings. Most of the ANI's are closed with no action because no clear violation has really occurred to warrant action. I think the community needs to step back and let this editor have some space rather than constantly fire allegations at them. -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom - would reduce ANI backlog. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Tentative support (but not the immediate opening of ArbCom case). The repeat threats have been a time sink, but I don't see that an ArbCom case would result in anything different from how the previous threads have closed. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to ArbCom - Clearly the community has been ineffective in dealing with this. ArbCom is there to deal with things the community cannot. This is perfect for them poor bastards. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Kick it to Arbcom There's been 6 ANIs, and frankly they haven't been able to achieve anything. Joseph2302 21:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Being a very active editor in controversial areas (like deletions) gets one reported a lot. We've seen it with other editors (who shall go nameless, but I can name names if desired), so ST is not an exception. Making stipulations like this is a slippery slope and not really enforceable. I think this discussion has put any frivolous filers on notice (and liberal use of BOOMERANG for frivolous filers should be applied), but let's not make ill-advised and virtually unenforceable individual exemptions/stipulations. Also ST does have problematical behaviors, including sometimes prodding clearly notable articles and then refusing to accept that they are indeed notable. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC); edited 22:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

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

• @Dennis Brown: I believe you missed the sentiment and consensus behind the Kick it to Arbcom !votes. While ANI can not mandate ArbCom there is a clear expression that ANI can not handle the issues surrounding ST's editing. Procedural restrictions on opening ANI threads are not supported but it is clear that consensus is that rather than opening yet another pointless thread where time is wasted and nothing is resolved, people either need to accept and deal with ST's behavior re NPP & deletions or suck it up and open an ArbCom case. Jbh^Talk 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Basically agree, except I would add that if/when an ArbCom case is requested (and even more if/when it is accepted) there will be a de facto moratorium on further ANI discussions. In my experience, ANI discussions of the same thing ArbCom is currently dealing with almost always get shot down on site. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That is correct, and since that is where the discussion is leading and that is an impossible decision to make at ANI, closing is the right procedure. Also note that even putting all the Arb comments aside, the original proposal is not actionable. We can't do that regardless of consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

We've had "send to arbcom" votes before. It's a recommendation. Having the community support an arbcom filing helps show the perceived need for arbcom intervention. I don't think you close was necessary or even that helpful here. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. For the record, I often enjoy seeing ST's !votes at AfD because he is often the only one participating besides the nominator. That said, edits such as this [224], [225], [226], [227], in addition to the persistent aspersion-casting that the admin OP noted, suggest to me that he has lost all perspective about deletion criteria and needs to be reined in. I think a temporary (three to six month) topic ban on all facets of deletion, broadly construed would allow him to return to normal editing and get some perspective. Short of, or beyond, that I think someone would need to file a WP:RFAR; the question is, who would file it? That said, ST has apparently preempted all of this by apparently retiring 12 hours ago [228]. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Problematic 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.

---

IP Special:Contributions/31.48.63.149 has been reverting my edits to multiple pages here, here, and here. They've threatened legal action twice, here and here, and I've given them a warning for this. A block is in order. Patient Zero^talk 13:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked two weeks. Katie^talk 15:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Recurrent stalking by Ajax1995

• Ajax1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to report a recurrent stalking by Ajax1995. He initially reported me on this similar noticeboard  – which has since been archived – with the same accusation, but failed to provide diffs to prove my misconduct. The reason he accused me of stalking was because I reverted his removal of mass sourced content in the Anahí page. He insisted in engaging in an edit war and the use of scathing language in his edit summary; the content has been restored by an admin two days ago. Since then, I decided to keep my distance from Ajax because I didn't want anything to do with his personality and his edits, which I personally both find reckless, to say the least.

But 12 days later, I was notified that I was "thanked" by Ajax for my contribution in the John Green article. I decided to change my name into "Matieszyn" after that; I was previously under the name of "Jebbiex". But today, he thanked my again, for this edit in the Rachel Weisz article. Now it made me wonder how Ajax ended up being in the John Green article and 12 days later in the Weisz article. It's rather downight creepy that this user's consciously reviewing my edit history. I do believe my privacy to make my own edits here is compromised. Matieszyn talk 12:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Three things:

1. You didn't notify Ajax of this discussion, as required (but NinjaRobotPirate took care of that).
2. Had Ajax "thanked" you or done anything else since you requested that s/he stop on his talk page? I ask because it has only been a few hours between that request and the thread you opened here.
3. "I do believe my privacy to make my own edits here is compromised." I'm not 100% sure what you mean by that, but any edit made on Wikipedia is public, not private.

Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Matieszyn: To expand slightly on Erpert's last point, everything we do on Wikipedia is generally both public and open to scrutiny from other Wikipedians. I don't know all of the background detail to this particular case, but I'd like to offer you an alternative explanation / perspective to this. It's not at all unusual for someone to look in on the ongoing contributions of someone who they have previously encountered (either a positive or negative encounter). Without any clear evidence to indicate bad intent, people should normally assume good faith. I.e. if there's nothing else currently happening you should probably just interpret being "thanked" as nothing more than that, no complex or hidden meaning or intent, but simply another editor thanking you for your contribution (including the implication that they probably agree with the contribution and think it was useful). On the other side of it, thanks are publicly logged and open to the same basic scrutiny as everything else, so if someone really is abusing the feature that can be seen fairly easily. I strongly suggest not worrying about it and just putting your energy into making useful collaborative contributions to the site. Of course, if there's a new significant incident, or the situation somehow escalates, you can come back in the future for further assistance. Murph9000 (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this is the previous incident referred to. Karst (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Springee gaming the system

No action was taken on the most recent complaint about User:Springee due to "tl;dr". His habit of prematurely declaring disputes over in his favor was one kind long term abuse at issue. Here, Springee used a trick of adjusting an archive bot's settings to force an RfC to close, when the question of whether or not to close it was still under discussion. In Springee's most recent RfC, created because two other discussions weren't going his way, he declared it over, and himself correct multiple times, on the grounds the outcome was "not contentious" and therefore didn't need formal closure. Springee had to be told multiple times that there was no such consensus or obvious outcome.

• Springee then requested closure so that an uninvolved editor could judge the outcome, and announced the RfC was awaiting closure
• Next a bot comes along and removes the RfC template as expired. Bots don't know what's going on; they just do what they're programmed to do. Springee knows this.
• Springee, per his usual M.O., interprets this as an outcome in his favor. He proceeds to resume the edit war that had been on hold during the RfC: [229][230].
• Feeling especially empowered, Springee uses this "outcome" as license to delete more content from some other article not under discussion. And to wikilawyer to expand the scope of his imaginary license into a completely different RfC about a completely different topic (an RfC he discovered via WP:WIKIHOUNDING).
• WP:RFCEND says when outcomes are obvious and uncontroversial, there is no need for formal closure. It is obvious to anyone that these issues are anything but uncontroversial, having been dragged through several talk pages, multiple RfCs, and one recent AN/I thread. Springee pretending this is uncontroversial is typical of his WP:IDHT attitude. Pretending the outcome of any discussion is "obviously" in his favor is part of a pattern of gaslighting and gaming the system. WP:RFCEND does not say the automated bot's removal of the RfC advertisemnt after 30 days is the same as formal closure. Springee has done this several times: start a formal RfC, but ignore the process when he feels like it. Now he requests formal closure, but is simply ignoring that in because he sees an opportunity to pretend the outcome is obvious.

  Springee knows very well these edits [231][232][233][234] are provocative, and he knows that acting unilaterally, instead of letting the process run and be decided by uninvolved third parties, is exactly the behavior that has led to so much drama. All he had to do was step back and let the closure proceed, but he cannot stop himself from bludgeoning the process, interfering at every step, wikilawyering, canvassing[235][236], scraping together support by copying !votes from one page to another. I don't believe he is capable of stopping this battleground behavior. He has very little interest in editing anything in Wikipedia outside these bitter disputes. I'm requesting an indefinite block of Springee. The last AN/I thread about his behavior contained several warnings that his actions were problematic, "putting his thumb on the scale" and should be curtailed. He is not going to stop gaming the system unless blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've looked into this, read the previous thread as well as other AN threads involving this user and if one is patient enough to sift through the endless walls of text involved, it actually seems fairly obvious that there's a fundamental and persistent battleground behavior problem. I'm inclined to agree with the complaint. Will allow some more time for uninvolved opinions. Swarm ♠ 18:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm probably considered involved at this point (having raised concerns about Springee's editing in the past), but I'm very glad to see an uninvolved admin take the time to read through all the links and take it seriously. I think "fundamental and persistent battleground behavior problem" is a pretty accurate description. Beyond that, I don't have much to ad beyond my comments in the last ANI thread. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC results are ~20:5 for removal. The comment period closed on the 9th but the last comment was Oct 1st. I'm sorry Dennis feels this is a personal attack but that just isn't the case. Perhaps the previous proposed remedy is the right one. Dennis and I are blocked from filing complaints about one another anywhere other than ArbCom. I'm certainly tired of Dennis's personal attacks and false accusations as well as his misrepresenting events in order to bring admin actions against me. Perhaps asking the opinions of editors involved in the RfCs (Chrysler and the recent one) makes sense in this case.Springee (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you reduce archiving time for a talk: page from 300 days to 30 days?

Why did you do this at a time when it would cause the immediate archiving of RfCs that you were involved in? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(Sorry for the length) That is a fair question. Short answer, to reduce talk page clutter after the RfC was over and the material had been added. The RfC discussion was stale (last post was May 1st, my archive edit was May 10th) and, contrary to what Dennis claimed, the material at the heart of the RfC was added by me on April 25th [[237]], [[238]]. The claim that I refused to add the material etc are simply not true.

The RfC was a mess due to HughD's gaming. He opened it on March 23rd. As April 23rd approached opinions were evenly split. HughD engaged in a notification campaign and unilaterally extended the comment period beyond 30 days [[239]]. As of April 27th he added new notifications [[240]]. The campaigning was successful and resulted in a include consensus (no reason for external closing to see that). Since the RfC discussion was stale and the information was already added I didn't see it as an issue that the RfC was archived along with a number of other long winded threads. Dennis seemed to agree with the clutter issue as he didn't restore the 300d setting, only a 90 day setting. The 30 day setting may have been a mistake on my part but given that the material was already added and the RfC over and stale I didn't see any harm. Dennis seemed content as after the closing he didn't edit the material I added and restored it when others removed it [[241]].

The material Dennis claims I tried to remove was about recalls and was not the subject of the RfC, was added several months later and was opposed by more than just myself (see mid July edits). As I've said before, Dennis is trying to cast things in the worst possible light. Again, sorry this is a long reply. Springee (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Dennis accused me of bludgeoning the recent RfC. I added 1925 words to the discussion, 531 in my "oppose" argument. Dennis's first statement was 566 words and 2830 words in total, nearly 50% more than me. CuriousMind01, an editor whom I disagree with yet am collaborating with [[242]] added 2459 words. Above Dennis repeated a claim that the recent RfC started because "things weren't going my way". As I showed in his last ANI, with diffs, the RfC was because the discussion was stalled at 3:3. Last time he also claimed I ignored the RfC results when the RfC was still two days into the future! Collect had it right, "but otherwise I fear that it is Bratland who is "not here" to work collegially." [[243]] Springee (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Unheadered query

This is confusing... How do I report an IP (2.31.126.218) for harassment on a Wikipedia page. Constantly posting slanderous information on a school wiki page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabsmith1980 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rabsmith1980: Hi there - this is one of a couple of venues concerns such as this can be brought to. I've had a look over the IPs contributions and can see they have been removed from the article in question. The main issue with the IPs contributions is that they were unreferenced - we require the use of reliable sources to verify added information. In the future, the IP would need to be warned before being reported to this noticeboard. If continued vandalism occurs the article may be protected -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I also suggest using twinkle to automate common daily tasks. Check twinkle on your prefernces page to enable it. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pldx1 appears to be trolling me, and isn't doing much else

Pldx1 (talk · contribs)'s behaviour has been brought up here twice before with several users agreeing that his edits were troubling, but with the threads getting archived without a proper close. He hasn't added much good content to the encyclopedia (his English is very poor and always needs to be proof-read by others, and his sourcing standards are not great either). After a three-month absence, he recently re-emerged and made one possibly-bad edit and one definitely-bad one, which I reverted.[244][245][246][247]

In a discussion on MOS peripherally related to the former, which had until then been unusually civil for MOS, he posted a long comment that was barely legible but appeared to be unrelated to the MOS problem and to be trying to make the discussion about me.[248] After I called him out for this, he posted a piece of sarcasm that served no purpose but to get a rise out me.[249] When I told him that if he continued doing this I would report him on ANI, he replied with this. (It's very annoying being called out for the odd misprint on a talk page by the editor who added this to the mainspace.)

Note that I have told him several times to stop pinging me, but he has kept doing it, including in all three of the recent comments. Despite the ping, I didn't see the last one until after User:Curly Turkey had reverted it as "trolling", but it still seems like something should be done to address this problem.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:51, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User Hijiri88. You put yourself in a hole. You better stop digging and let it snow, before unearthing a boomerang. Pldx1 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope; Pldx1, no boomerangs here today. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pldx1's constant abuse of the words "snow" and "boomerang" was addressed in the previous ANI discussions. I linked those archive threads rather than mentioning it here. The fact that he has used the word "snow" to describe several debates he was on the weaker side of as being in his favour on so many different occasions, and I have explained to him why it is wrong each time, is just another example of WP:IDHT on the part of this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've encountered this user before, and I can confirm that their tone is often smug and taunting, and that they have very, very low sourcing standards. Reyk _YO! 14:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Dear user Reyk. Let us see what sources are saying. According to http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/editorinteract.py?users=reyk&users=pldx1&users=&startdate=20140101&enddate=20161005&ns=&server=enwiki, this encounter occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer)_(2nd_nomination). Perhaps you perceived the remark:
  Moreover, it doesn't seem that "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery" are established cricket technical expressions
  as smug and taunting. How do you perceive, some months later, your own expressions ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

• This is eaxctly the haughty trolling I was talking about. Thank you for making my point for me. Reyk _YO! 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a proposed enforcement action we're being asked to consider here? —swpb^T 20:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Swpb: Block. The user lacks necessary competence to edit here and is not here. Their mainspace edits are either minor alterations that include grammatical or other errors, or significant changes that are dubious POV, borderline OR or unsourced and also contain grammatical and other errors. Their non-mainspace edits are even worse -- loaded with personal attacks and trolling, assumptions of bad faith, and bizarre non-sequiturs. He disappeared for three months, and when he came back his edits had somehow become worse. The only defense of their edits that has been presented was that they might have kinda-sorta partly cleaned up one article this guy messed up. A TBAN from edits to the Wikipedia, talk, Wikipedia talk and user talk spaces, and perhaps substantial prose edits (i.e., not uncontroversial technical fixes) to the article space, would be a viable alternative, but I think it would be functionally the same because he has already demonstrated that he would immediately and repeatedly violate a TBAN, to the point where he would quickly be subjected to an indefinite block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hmm, everything sticks. I advise Pldx1 to cut down the rhetoric and stick to pure article editing outside his niche to prevent problems (the nice people at GOCE could always use a few more hands). Hijiri has been on ANI since forever and I'm not saying it's his fault but it's getting tiring. I think some quiet self-introspection is best for all parties here (including me). :) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• User Hijiri88 should be reminded that an ANI-complaint is intended to describe Incidents in such a way that Administrators can make their opinion about the alleged misdeeds, and that ANI shouldn't be used as a dramaboard. When complaining about pings, a description of who pinged whom and when should be provided. When complaining about "trolling", it should be stated why asking "To make sense of; comprehend" or not "To make sense of; comprehend" should be evaluated as inflammatory. When pretending that "[Pldx1] sourcing standards are not great either", links should be provided to the allegedly poorly sourced articles. In place of that, the complaint filled by User Hijiri88 is only casting unsubstantiated lettersoup trigrams.

By the way, User Hijiri88 should ask himself if insisting on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Use_of_.22fortnightly.22_over_.22bi-weekly.22_and.2For_.22two-weekly.22.3F is the right move to make: his behavior there was, how to say it, far below the established cricket standard.

Once again, all this gives the impression that User:Hijiri88 has a poor proficiency of cooperative mind: the next step seems to be somewhere between snow and a boomerang effect. Pldx1 (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Did anyone else read the above? Something really needs to be done about this user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

So, umm... is anyone going to close this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

I took some time to read the current AN/I and the prior AN/I's and this is the proposed resolution I would suggest based on everything put forth.

1. Interaction ban between Pldx1 and Hijiri88; Clearly these two editors have a problem working together and should not interact. Edit Compare Report
2. Pldx1 will stop pinging Hijiri88 per the above IBAN.
3. Pldx1 is strongly encouraged to review WP:SNOW and WP:BOOMERANG to gain a better understanding of these policies as neither have applied.
4. Pldx1 is also encouraged to review the civility policy, as some of their prior posts appear to be uncivil.
5. Both users are reminded to assume good faith.

Personally those are my thoughts on this situation. -- Dane2007 ^talk 19:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't want a mutual interaction ban: I have done nothing wrong, and in my experience mutual interaction bans are extremely easy to game. And if no one else is going to clean up Pldx1's edits, how can I be prevented from doing so? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, given what happened the first time we interacted, telling me that I need to learn to assume good faith seems pretty bizarre -- the problem got as bad as it did because I kept assuming that Pldx1 wasn't trolling and/or POV-pushing, and didn't report him earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Concerning. Aldebaran69 edits and lack of editor interaction over those edits

Aldebaran69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

From my talk page:

I have a concern about user:Aldebaran69. Since November 2014 other editors have posted concerns on Aldebaran69's talk page, which were summarily deleted.

• @Eric: has posted 8 times concerning Aldebaran not using edit summaries. 8 October 2016
• I have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran adding unsourced/poorly sourced information, out-of-context information, unreliable sources.
• You have posted 3 times concerning Aldebaran using unreliable sources. Aldebaran simply deleted your comment.
  

Here is an example of one of the articles that Aldebaran created:

• Sophie Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg, note the sources.

What would you suggest? --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I will add that I find Aldebaran69 to be an example of a large class of editors on en.wp who do whatever they feel like here, are uncommunicative, often have challenges with English fluency, and thereby generate a lot of work for others. Eric ^talk 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

user interaction:

• Aldebaran69, Eric
• Aldebaran69, Kansas Bear
• Aldebaran69, PBS

Ping @Aldebaran69, Eric, and Kansas Bear: as they were mentioned on my talk page.

12 March 2016: last posting by Kansas Bear to user talk:Aldebaran69

Massive additions to Louis IV of France (diff 12 March 2016) Can you explain to me what the section "Deposition of Charles III the Simple" has to do with Louis IV? I have read that section and it makes no mention at all about Louis. Can you explain to me why this information should not be removed? Also, can you explain why you have added paragraphs of information[250][251][252][253][254] with no sources? Why this information should not be removed as well? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

13 August 2016 (As mentioned above) last posting by PBS to user talk:Aldebaran69

Citing unreliable source (diff 13 August 2016) I am concerned that you are adding unreliable sources to articles. I fist came across one when you added genealogy.euweb.cz geneall.net to James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick with this edit. I presume that you added those sites to explain the comment I have added to the talk page talk:James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick @User:Aldebaran69 on 9 November 2014 you added a lot of information to this article without any citations to a reliable source. Please add some (CHALLENGE). -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Did you really find that information on those pages? As you know I raised the issue of those two sites at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#genealogy.euweb.cz_and_geneall.net. What makes you think that either of those sites meet the Wikipedia criteria as described on the policy page WP:V, or the guideline page WP:RS? Looking through you more recent edits I also spotted that you made an edit on the 1 August 2016 where you added information to the article Dorothea of Anhalt-Zerbst] that was supported by an citation to ww-person.com (11 August 2016). I checked and ww-person.com is only found the following articles: Jeanne d'Albret (28 July 2016) Dorothea of Anhalt-Zerbst (11 August 2016) Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau (15 July 2016) Peter von Biron (8 February 2016) Ludowika Margaretha of Zweibrücken-Bitsch (17 February 2016) George III, Count of Erbach-Breuberg (17 February 2016 ) You also made an edit to this page on 14 April 2015 where you added a lot of information based on http://genealogy.euweb.cz Clara Maria of Pomerania-Barth (11 August 2016) Duchess Elisabeth Sophie of Mecklenburg 11 August 2016) Dorothea von Medem 8 February 2016) All of the citations to that website ww-person.com were added by you. I also noticed while compiling this list that you are using other websites of a similar quality. Please explain how you decide what is and is not a website that meets the requirements of WP:V. Two editors who I noticed has edited one of the pages you did (Princess Carolina of Orange-Nassau: Revision history) have an interest in similar pages User:DrKay(Editor Interaction Analyser) and user:FactStraight (Editor Interaction Analyser), they are experienced editors who I know in passing, so I am inviting them to add their thoughts. -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping @DrKay and FactStraight: as they are mentioned in the collapse box.

Both of these similar example posts to user talk:Aldebaran69 by two different editors were deleted without comment by Aldebaran69. Six months separate them and there is no evidence that there is any change in the behaviour by Aldebaran69 between the edits.

In the past I would have suggested an RfC. What is now done to persuade editors to engage with other editors when they make edits that the other editors consider harmful to the project? -- PBS (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote WP:COMMUNICATE for similar issues where they are reverting, but if they aren't reverting you back, and their edits are obviously in good faith even if wrong, AND most of their edits are fine, it is a tough call. There are a lot of reasons why people won't communicate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello to the administrators and members; I understood your concern and I'm sorry if I had some mistakes about the consecutive edits...about with English fluency, I tried to correct myself and in my latests posts (if you see) I correct myself....about being uncommunicative; I didn't know that EVERY time that an user or administrator wrote to me I had the obligation to made a reply; if this is the case, from now I do it. Again, sorry for the inconvenients.Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't about obligation, it is more about being courteous. If someone has a problem with what you are doing, communicating allows you to explain, allows them to understand, or allows you to learn. This means less problems in the future. Replying to serious concerns about your edits on your talk page is just the polite thing to do. It doesn't mean you have to agree, but as long as they are being polite when asking, you should reply with a short answer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Aldebaran69 you write above "I didn't know that EVERY time that an user or administrator wrote to me I had the obligation to made a reply" whether that is true or not EVERY time (4 in all) I have posted to your talk page you have removed my posting without replying. What I find worrying about this is not your lack of response, but that you have ignored their content. For example the posting I made to you page on 11 August 2016 (and have I quoted in the collapse box dated 13 August above) I list some unreliable sources. Yet you used one of those websites http://genealogy.euweb.cz to support some of the text in creating on 8 October Sophie Elisabeth of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Wiesenburg, which since user:Kansas Bear removed the none reliable sources (diff) is now an article with no sources at all.

WP:SOURCE is the policy section of WP:V. For a further explanation of what is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia see also the guideline WP:RS and the essay Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).

@Aldebaran69 Creating article using such unreliable sources is damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia. In future:

1. will you only reliable sources to back up text that you use to create articles and add additional text to articles?
2. If you are unsure if a source is reliable before you use it will you post to WP:RSN for conformation?

-- PBS (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@PBS Thanks for your kind suggestions. I try to followed in the future to avoid problems. Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@user:Aldebaran69 will you also add meaningful edit summaries as requested by user:Eric? -- PBS (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a summary to every edit made in the past few days to avoid problems. Thanks Aldebaran69 (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Will you continue to do so? -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if was needed, and only to small edits...when I made translations I put on the article the under construction template.Aldebaran69 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jurre27

This user has been editing the article Netherlands national football team for a few years now (from both that account or from IP addresses when not logged in), by keeping the squad and caps/goals for each player updated. The problem is that every single one of his edits includes wrong birthdays for several players (specifically Jeroen Zoet, Michel Vorm and Karim Rekik). This is the most recent example, but if you take a look at his contributions, you will see that all of his edits are similar and all include the same errors. I've tried reaching out to him on the article's talk page, his user talk page (I do realise I could have been a little friendlier there), and by using hidden text in the article itself, but he never responds to any of it and keeps making the same edits.

I've reported this here earlier this week, which went mostly ignored. If that is because this is the wrong place to report this, please tell me where I should be reporting this. Kinetic37 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems like borderline WP:IDHT. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I left a strong yet polite message on his talk page, with a link to WP:Communication is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

He's made similar edits again today after the match vs. France (again with wrong birthdays): edit 1, edit2. Kinetic37 (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked until he communicates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock extension for 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/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.

---

I am requesting that 2604:2000:a005:1f00::/64 be rangeblocked again. They were blocked in the past twice, once for 45 days by KrakatoaKatie and once for 3 months by Malcolmxl5 (see block log). Previous ANI threads requesting blocks can be found at Archive 917 and Archive 925. Note that category spamming has resumed by this user in this edit and this one. From what I can tell from the edit histories for this range since September 1, 2016, this is the first incident of abuse reoccurring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I may be losing my edge, but I actually hesitate to whack them with a long rangeblock again, because the edits by 2604:2000:A005:1F00:31EA:275F:ECD6:7BE2 today[255] are the only things out of the /64 range since the last block. EvergreenFir, could you please explain why those edits are so bad? Bishonen | talk 21:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Persistence of exact same behavior over multiple months and blocks. They weren't bad individually, but the IP hopping and persistence resulted in a range block. Then after that expired, they continued. So block was extended. Amazingly, they've resumed again. It's one individual with a range of IPs assigned to them, so there's no collateral damage. The persistence plus the lack of collateral damage makes me think rangeblock is appropriate again. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no concerns about collateral damage, that's not it. It's all one individual all right. But... well, I'll just leave this request to someone else, sorry. Bishonen | talk 21:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC). PS, "IP hopping" as such isn't a reason to block an IPv6. The hopping is the ISP's fault, not the user's. Bishonen | talk 21:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Okay thank you. I pinged the two previous blocking admins since they might remember the case a bit. No worries if you're not comfortable making this rangeblock or think I'm mistaken. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

NrDg got there before I could and sent him on a six-month cruise. Katie^talk 23:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you NrDg and KrakatoaKatie! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 for "antifascist reputation" by user: Stonedtower

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

---

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

I've had previous interactions with this editor, but today's contributions are compelling me to report their actions here:

• "his reputation for antifa political activism makes his edits unreliable until he can prove otherwise". -- the edit re-inserted dubious publications into Further reading section, including some that were described by another editor as "neo-Nazi publications" (please see this discussion: User_talk:Hawkeye7/Archive_2016#Neo-Nazi_publications)
  • Previous revert/reinsertion of similar content: "Speculation based upon possible political bias"

• same edit summary -- this revert moved a maintenance template and re-added a red link to an article previously deleted as a potential hoax; please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josef Allerberger

I've previously attempted to interact with the user (User talk:Stonedtower#Further reading), but this does not appear to have been productive as the editor did not respond. I would like an uninvolved admin to please have a look into this. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

By looking at the user's editing history, I realised that we had interacted on other pages earlier in the year. I see more of the apologetic and / or POV edits, such as:

• this edit removed "one of the leader of mobile killing units in the Soviet Union" replacing it with innocuous sounding "a chief of Vorkommando Moscow, a unit of Einsatzgruppe B" while removing information about the subject's criminal conviction (in Ernst Achenbach)
• this edit removed a cited reference to "Barkmann legend" (in Ernst Barkmann). The editor further noted that "One writer's (controversial) view is not enough to change the accepted narrative", with the "accepted narrative" most likely having originated in Nazi propaganda.

Perhaps this has led to editor to conclude that my "hundreds of edits on the Waffen SS are unreliable", because I'm "on a crusade". Combined with the user's strong dislike of "antifascists", I wonder if a topic ban relating to Nazi Germany may be appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have warned the user for making personal attacks, which I believe is the appropriate course of action at this point. Further incidents should result in a preventative block. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 harassment in Turkish

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

---

II. Niveles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left a harassing message in Turkish to Athenean. From what I saw from Google translate, the section title calls Athenean a "Crusader" while the text makes mention of a "brothel". This is a nasty case of battleground harassment. The rest of the text makes mention of God and the reported user calls himself the descendant of some Sultan while there is a mention of 50 kilograms and beating someone. I think this user is WP:NOTHERE. Dr. K. 01:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

That comment seemed to come out of nowhere, so I looked into it. II. Niveles seems to have been recruited to a dispute at Ottoman Empire from :tr:Kullanıcı mesaj:II. Niveles § Osmanlı devleti günümüzdeki durumu tablo by Gündoğdu (talk · contribs), who is currently in an edit war with Athenean. I don't speak Turkish, so I can't be sure something isn't lost in the machine translation, but II. Niveles seems to take this minor content dispute a bit too seriously. Maybe someone who speaks Turkish can chime in? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Section title: O crusader look here!. Google translation of last sentence: I hit you back 50 pounds to the bottom you dövdür members of the brothel!. Dr. K. 01:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

From the Turkish Wikipedia, this is the response of Niveles to Gündoğdu on their talkpage (Google translation): I have sent messages through the necessary response from the English Wikipedia. They have declared war on their enemy, the Turkish-Islamic Turkish kingdom of God and they do everywhere hostility. Alhamdulillah, Allah is with us fraternity. - II. Niveles ( message ) 12:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC) Dr. K. 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an approximate translation: You think that we, the grandsons of Fatih (Mehmed II) and Suleyman, are going to be afraid of a couple of priests like you? We are the sons of Sultan Abdulhamit II. We are God’s most powerful soldiers, you think we’re going to be afraid by you Greeks? Hey Athenean, you shameless pimp, you’re not a man. If you mess with the Ottoman article, I’ll beat your 50 kilo body down, you whorehouse member!. Athenean (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

How... medieval (except for the kilos, of course). EEng 06:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

He is now edit warring to re-instate the threats [256]? Can we indef this guy already? Athenean (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm fluent in Turkish. That's a really chilling threat, and Athenean's translation is pretty much on the mark. If you guys need any help in translating any further remarks, let me know. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks for the help, everyone. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Saraiki dialect dispute

Hi all,

• 39.37.28.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 39.37.36.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 182.186.61.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following unregistered editors effectively (collectively) WP:FORUMSHOPped after a somewhat contentious Requested move closure. What happened afterwards: 2 RfCs (see talk page) were opened), a move review opened, and what looks to be 2 requests for mediation (one on talk, procedurally closed, two here in the wrong namespace, but duplicating content). The IPs geolocate to approximately the same location as far as I can tell, and are unwilling to accept the RM closure.

I suggest that this page be procedurally deleted; a move review (the proper venue to dispute RM closures) is already opened and running, no request for mediation is needed. In addition, wondering if it also makes sense to close one of the RfCs started. Process is important, and the way these IPs handled the situation is not conducive to discussion in my honest opinion. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_143#Talk:Saraiki_dialect.23Requested_move_21_September_2016. This was a request for informal mediation at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I closed it because informal mediation is not intended to override or re-review consensus, and advised that a Move Review could be used if there was an issue with the closer's judgment, and that is being done. I concur with the filer that the unregistered editor or editors are forumshopping and are being disruptive. I recommend semi-protection of the article talk page, a relatively drastic measure, but necessary to stop this filibustering. As to the correctly filed mediation request, I am confident that User:TransporterMan will find a way to dismiss it. While I think that a Request for Comments is an appropriate step after a Requested Move, because an RFC is a better consensus process than a Move Request, I don't see the merits to having two RFCs and a Move Review. Either close both RFCs while the Move Review is running, or close the Move Review and one of the RFCs and let the other run. I agree with the filer that the unregistered editor is being disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockmaster of the Beyhive?

I was going through the history of Beck (the first page vandalized by rabid Beyoncé fans) to find the original Beyhive account, and I think this is it: Special:Contributions/Illegallylovato. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) ... and we care, why exactly? 2607:FB90:33C:204B:51DD:5D12:5150:54B3 (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Norschweden edit warring

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

---

Norschweden is genre warring and just made their forth revert om St. Anger. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

there was a sourced genre which was deleted and i restored the sourced version and Mlpearc reverted that again, he is the only vandal there Norschweden (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

If you look through the page history Heavy metal is the only established genre, the sourced genre had no consensus, regardless you made four reverts. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"established" doesn't mean correct. source? Norschweden (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Mlpearc and DannyMusicEditor genre warring

Mlpearc and DannyMusicEditor are genre warring and just made their forth revert on St. Anger they play as a team, d. did one and m. did three and blame me, who just wants to keep the sourced pre-war status quo, edit warring Norschweden (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are at 4RR and I'm trying to figure out why you shouldn't be blocked. The genre was stable before you came along. I see you started a discussion, but you haven't been wise enough to stop reverting while the discussion takes place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

the discussion was over long time ago, the genre was stable and correct after the discussion until danny and mlpearc came Norschweden (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That is false. The diffs prove otherwise, and everyone can read them for themselves. Sampling your edits, you have invested a fair amount of time not just changing the genre but removing "heavy metal" from the article. Again, I'm searching for a reason to not block you, but you aren't reassuring me that this behavior isn't going to continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

removing heavy metal was my mistake, because the definition is different in mid-europe, we see it as subgenre of metal, while you see it as synonym for metal. i discussed a long time and gave source for heavy, alternative and thrash metal. btw. heavy metal had no real source before i changed it and the genre was never stable, many people changed it over the time. Norschweden (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I just sampled snapshots from a year ago to when you came. About 8 different months. Every one of them had only the heavy metal genre, none had any other. It was stable. This is the part where you say "I don't want to get blocked, so out of good faith I will go revert myself and discuss it on the talk page." I'm quite literally out of reasons to not block you, and that would be the only one I have left. This doesn't mean I'm blind to the fact that others are pushing their luck, too. But the main problem here is you, whether you want to admit it or not. Whether you understand it or not. So go and do the smart thing, revert yourself and talk on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't care if it is disco, I don't care what genre is right. Admin don't decide content. I do care that you are all edit warring, and that you have been the worst of the bunch, so I'm not prone to keep discussing it. The options are in front of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"So go and do the smart thing, revert yourself and talk on the talk page." did that already the discussion was over, we found consens and evrything was fine until DannyMusicEditor came and deleted source and fact. shall i discuss with everyone who does good faith edits? Norschweden (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

btw. Norschweden (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd have written an offended response if it hadn't been covered clearly already. That would just be piling on the snow now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours. Mlpearc needs to watch his reverting as well. If you are going to revert more than once, you need to also be willing to start a discussion on the article talk page, you can't just wait for them to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Final note: I didn't really look at what Danny did or didn't do, but it would be helpful if everyone stopped reverting so much, no matter what the count is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Message received. - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thought I'd make a comment here, in case my reasons for reporting this editor at WP:AIV were overlooked. This editor has been edit-warring at other pages as well, such as the Lords of Summer song article, and I think 48 hours is far too lenient. I know that I'm at fault as well for the reverts that I have done, as are numerous other editors across these pages, but this editor is incapable of listening and consistently resorts to editing against consensus. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying on their talk page now. They have never been blocked, so I stand by my choice of 48 hours as a tool to stop disruption and make wake them up. If it doesn't work, future blocks are cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Richard Madenfort, Rick Marty adding himself to many music articles by way of socks and IPs

For nine years now, some registered accounts and primarily Pennsylvania IPs have been adding guitarist/producer Richard Madenfort (aka Rick Marty, aka MadDog) to lots of music articles, despite nothing published to support the assertions. There is a real-life person in Pennsylvania who has Facebook photos showing he has been a guitarist in various bands since the late 1980s. The problem here is that his contribution has not been the subject of discussion in reliable sources. I found out about this guy today because of a recent push by some accounts to create redirects for him and to put wikilinks around his name wherever it appears, sending our readers uselessly to the redirects.

Back in August 2007, Noneof yourbusiness48 put up a biography at Rick marty but it was speedily deleted.[257] The guy continued socking to get his name back in. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Noneof yourbusiness48 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive914#IP disruptive editing. Bbb23 served as checkuser and blocking admin.

Redirects

• Richard Madenfort
• Richard Madenfort (musician)
• Rick Marty
• Rick Marty (musician)

Previously deleted

• Rick marty

Involved accounts

• 181.215.138.155 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Chicago)
• 181.215.114.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Chicago)
• 98.111.115.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Harrisburg)
• 50.153.172.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Harrisburg)
• 153.92.43.106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hong Kong)
• 2601:983:8001:BC50:5D14:766D:2100:42F (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8001:BC50:18F:FB84:43FF:7755 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8000:E01C:98F3:24A5:680F:F5DC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 2601:983:8000:E01C:6D46:E74D:83B0:21C2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• 98.235.99.28 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Hershey)
• Draftwait (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Skipbaize (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Snakelumps123 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Visacreek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Manfromoscal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Rickmartyfanclub (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Neweditorintown (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Examples

• 9 September 2016 – Adding Rick Marty to disambiguation page
• 8 September 2016 – Creating page Richard Madenfort
• 15 April 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits on Sundown Heaven Town
• 3 March 2016 – Adding MadDog to credits for Peace Is the Mission
• 2 March 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits for ReJoyce: The Christmas Album
• 2 March 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to credits for Joy to the World (Faith Hill album)
• 20 February 2016 – Adding Richard Madenfort to the credits for Show Me How
• 4 September 2015 – Adding a quote from Richard Madenfort to Jem and the Holograms (film)
• 4 September 2015 – Talking about Richard Madenfort making cameo appearances in Nashville (2012 TV series)

I would like to see the redirects deleted as they do not lead our readers to any information about this guy. I would also appreciate some assistance in finding out exactly what legitimate credits this guy has, so that we can remove all the unreferenced and otherwise unsupported listings. I get the feeling we are working with a hoaxer, or at least someone who is padding his resume. From his angle it appears he's frustrated that he has not been given proper credit for his creative work, as suggested in this post. If there's a real biography that we can write, even a barebones stub, then we can establish a defensible page of the guy's known associations and works. That way we can point to a consensus when he tries to add unreferenced stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ignored report

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

---

Looks like my report about User:Gayviewmahat has been archived, even if there is no decisive action or at least another response was made. My report has been archived here so I wish someone may respond and take some actions. Thank you. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not saying this is the case but I'd assume if admin intervention was needed I'm sure it would've been dealt with there and then and the fact nothing got done could be a hint that nothing needed doing. –Davey2010^Talk 10:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well we can assume that. But I wish an admin would re-analyze my report and make a decision that would settle this. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 a block

Please block this user based upon an incident wherein he or she vandalized my home page,at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BeenAroundAWhile&diff=prev&oldid=743917936. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think two silly edits are enough to warrant a block, but I've issued a final warning. For future incidents of vandalism, please report at WP:AIV. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding this edit by you, users are allowed to remove warning messages from their own talk pages and it's taken as an indication that they have read them - and you should not reinstate them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted both. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Request

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

---

This is a relatively urgent request to have all restrictions removed. Almost all of my time on Wikipedia is now spent on making charts as my primary username but I can not add them to Wikipedia without logging out and can not add them to any semi-protected article. I just did three charts for maternal fatality and would like to add them using my primary username but can not do that. Nor do I wish to wait six months to ask for this restriction to be removed. When it was brought up there was no decision and it was archived as a stale discussion. I still am only about half way caught up on all the things I noticed when I was blocked, and some of them involve each of the restrictions I am under and each means that I can nor make a productive contribution because of that and I have no interest in invoking IAR and making the edits anyway. I follow all the rules and always have. I was away for six months during which I continued to contribute to other projects and never once violated the block thus qualifying me for a standard offer which I am requesting. As soon as this is approved I will put one or more of these three charts into one or more articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs to work on and another 6,000 or more waiting for translations, so I am never going to run out of the graphics I am working on (so far I have done over 1,500) and have no time for wiki drama. But I would like to be able to use the work that I am creating. After all, a picture is worth 1,000 words. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Could you link to your restrictions? I'm not sure what you are requesting to have removed. Also, the way you have phrased this request implies that you have secondary accounts and that you log out to evade the restrictions. Could you clarify that?--Atlan (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe from this and the previous discussion that Apteva's work on charts invokes some of the issues related to his MOS ban. Tables/charts etc often require *specific* formatting which may conflict with other formatting used in the article hence the request to remove the restrictions. He is not saying he has been logging out, he is saying in order to put the material in he would need to log out and edit as an IP, and that even if he did, he wouldnt be able to make changes to semi-protected articles - he clarifies this when he says he has no wish to IAR and do it anyway. So currently his restrictions prevent him from making useful changes - the only way to make said changes would be to break the rules, and he doesnt want to break the rules. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN January 2013, including the "Proposal to restrict Apteva to one account" subsection. I think more information is needed before anything can be considered, despite the fact that Apteva has done good work at Commons and has been editing well here for over a year ago, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Atlan: Ctrl+F WP:RESTRICT for "Apteva"; it's not clear if they are currently violating the restriction to one appeal every six months. I think if they let an appeal get archived wihout a proper close and didn't immediately request a proper close, then they should be blocked unless there was clear consensus to remove the restrictions.It is not at all clear to me what they want to do, what they are restricted from doing, or what the relationship between these two might be, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Apteva's restrictions are logged at WP:Editing restrictions. His last appeal was in April of this year, which is give or take a day, 5 months ago, and that appeal was indeed archived with no resolution (I commented on it and almost no one else did). In fairness I do not think an archived request that was not closed should count towards his 6 months limit, if you are appealing a restriction you should get a clear yes/no answer. However my comment still stands - I do not think lifting restrictions from someone that were put in place specifically to prevent them making certain edits, so they can continue to make those edits is a good idea. Saying that, it has been awhile, so maybe its time to see if they can work in the area without conflict. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really think about that. I don't really understand the urgency of re-appealing five months after the last appeal was archived without result and risking a block for the possibility of getting the sanctions lifted one month sooner, and I would probably take the burden on myself to request a close if my appeal got archived without result, but you're right that it probably shouldn't count. Stricken. I would say remove the restrictions; they've certainly done their time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Except for the one-account restriction. A thorough explanation is needed for all use of alternate accounts, and since the vast majority of Wikipedians are already under a (de facto) similar restriction -- the policy called WP:SOCK -- explicitly allowing the use of alternate accounts should only be done if it is made clear why such an allowance is being requested. The above request ... doesn't look clear to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See my reply to Atlan. Its just the odd way he has phrased his request. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I remember having a few head bumps on Apteva's page around the time their sanctions and block were put in place. WP:RESTRICT doesn't log any charts restrictions for Apteva, so how is this actually a violation. Or am I missing a few things here? Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

To answer the immediately preceding question, early on I was doing charts as one user name and inserting them into the article under a different name (one name on commons one on enwiki) and got yelled at for being a sock even though the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another to use after I became an admin and for articles that I could not use the other name for. All very complicated but all quite simple. Unless anything has changed in the last five years other than that now all new accounts are SUL, my recollection is that if I take a photo of a house across the street I am allowed to put it into an article under a non-linked different username, that if I am working on an article that I would get fired if my boss found me doing it, etc. ditto. Almost all of my work is creating graphics under my primary user name, and I just uploaded three, that one at least would be extremely useful for the article on that subject and I am waiting with baited breath to be able to link it under my primary username. I would prefer but will defer if needed to continue editing the 150 solar articles under this user name just for the purpose of continuity. I am more than willing to follow all rules and only have one of own, Anonymity. That one is non-negotiable, and I am 100% certain, permitted, on this platform. I simply would not have any interest in contributing anything ever if it could not be done under that one and only one condition. If you look at all of the solar edits I have done from day one you will see they were all done under this username even if I was inserting a chart that was done with the commons name. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction. I have done 45 charts using this username and about 1800 under my primary username. Just guessing I would say I have about 20,000 edits, 2/3 on this username (13,900 and 10,360 under my primary username), as I was trying to "run up" the edit count to get to 5,000 so I could do an RFA. Apteva (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Why is a different, anonymous user name any more private than the "Apteva" anonymous user name? Why would you want a separate user name for "becoming an admin"? (I did read this, but I'm afraid it didn't help me to understand, sorry). -- Begoon 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Really the only thing that you would need to read is WP:VALIDALT. I am not asking for anything more or less than what the consensus of the community has determined are legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My opinion would only be an issue if I had a different idea than what is written there and I do not. But it is my contention that it would be trivial to look through 30,000 edits and figure out a huge volume about that person and quite possibly identify them, out them, but that is totally prohibited and has already caused us to lose at least one good editor that I know of, and perhaps more. One way of making that less likely would be to avoid editing anything that would immediately identify your country, your city, your street, or your house. After I became an admin some of my edits would be as an admin and some as an editor, and as many admins did at the time at least, I have no idea of today, a separate account was used when you were in a public place and could not log in but wanted to sort categories write articles, just do ordinary tasks. But that was a long time ago and that may have changed completely. I do know that now we have a serious problem promoting admins, but I do not know how many of the current admins are using alternative accounts. Anyway, read up on WP:VALIDALT to see all the ways that I would not just want to but need to use an alternative account. Basically I want all restrictions removed so that I can do the exact same things, no more, and no less, than anyone signing up to make their first edit today. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The above seems to be in order. I support removing all restrictions. I would, however, strongly urge Apteva to put more effort into considering how his comments will be read by other users. The above "the sole reason for the second name was to have one to use for editing and another [...] for articles that I could not use the other name for" very much looks like "for articles that I am not allowed edit per my restrictions". Requests for removal of restrictions should not require very careful reading and interpretation. But that's a minor issue; I still say remove the restrictions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't be averse to the removal of the restrictions provided some disclosure linking the 2 accounts was made to Arbcom. All of them are CheckUsers anyway so it wouldn't be out of their ability to link your accounts, although that would be a gross breach of policy if there was no reason to do so. Unfortunately, if someday Apteva were to become an admin, I believe there must be public disclosure of alt accounts. (Any admin may correct me here). Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I obviously have no objection to notifying Arbcom, and you are right that fishing expeditions and idle curiosity are forbidden. WP:AGF my intentions are and always have been only in the best interest of WP. Obviously as an admin you do not need to publicly reveal the accounts that you will use for privacy reasons. That would not work and if policy says you do that policy may need to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you would adhere to the prohibitions at WP:ILLEGIT in your use of an undisclosed alternative account, specifically the prohibitions from: Editing project space, Circumventing policies or sanctions, Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts, Avoiding scrutiny? Have you adhered to these conditions and prohibitions in your prior use of undisclosed alternative account(s)? -- Begoon 04:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I can categorically confirm that I will always adhere to all policies and guidelines, and out of 30,000 edits (give or take) I can only recall one violation and that was very early on before I knew about 3RR and an explanation would have worked far better than a block. Everything else has just been absurd wikidrama like below which I have neither the time nor interest in. I am her to build an encyclopedia and nothing else. You can either help me or I have no clue why you even have a user account. Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying, so let me ask directly: Are you therefore of the opinion that your blocks for disruption were not the result of your violation of any policy or guideline, such as, say WP:DISRUPT? I ask because how you view what happened in the past could be indicative of what may happen in the future, if restrictions are removed. I haven't decided whether I can support this yet, so your responses are helpful. I lean towards support, but I remember the events clearly, and still have lingering concerns. -- Begoon 09:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that you could not get me into an argument if you dragged me there. Too much work to do. I have a backlog of thousands of graphics to do and have no time for discussion. My intent is not to read this but to make an edit as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right? Right now I just don't care about anything other than creating another useful graphic and offering it. If anyone wants to change anything, the furthest I will go is leave a comment on the talk page and let future generations sort it out. I am proud of the 1800 graphics I have done. One that I am working on now is being translated into 80 to 90 languages, meaning it will be available in native language for that many different wikis. That is far more important than discussing whether there should be a comma after Atlanta! Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Ban is a few years old. I was going to vote to support, but looking at the enormous amount of discussion and hands thrown up in frustration pre-topic ban I found here alone, I vote no. The lack of clarity in the request doesn't give me confidence either, so I won't support a reduction in the topic ban to allow editing but not policy discussion. Perhaps closer Seraphimblade has something to say? --Elvey^(t•c) 02:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please I implore you to amend or withdraw this. There is one and only one reason for making this request now. To put a chart into an article. Surely you can see the value of having me do it using the username that uploaded that chart? Apteva (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The simple fact is that I don't even use this account any more other than to occasionally update the solar articles. All of the rest of the time I am on commons on my primary account creating charts which then get put into articles, but mostly are just available for articles or are already in articles. I would guess there are 500 to 1000 that get updated monthly or annually as new data becomes available, like ones showing unemployment, and the only time an article needs to be edited is to say the date range of the chart has changed in the caption. I will never run out of work creating and translating charts and that is where almost all of my time is spent. I just want to be able to use them too. Why is that such a strange request? Apteva (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

My only comment is that I closed the previous discussion based upon the consensus of the community that the restriction was necessary at that time. If it is now the community's view that it is no longer necessary, it should be lifted; conversely, if there is not a community consensus to lift it, it should remain in effect. The restriction is a community sanction, not something I came up with on my own. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest removing all sanctions, and that if anyone sees any hint of anything even questionable discussion here be capped to no more than two responses or ten minutes whichever comes first and one vote of support before closing the discussion and reimposing whichever portion is suggested. I will be marking this account "Not currently in use. Please contact me on commons." And not be using it for at least the rest of this year. I don't have time for controversy, and will avoid it like the plague, as I have an encyclopedia to work on that desperately needs help. You can't even look up the income in Florida without finding that the numbers have been vandalized and the page marked disputed. I will fix it but that takes time and effort. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The back and forth has lasted a couple days and may result in some confusion or perhaps inevitable talking over one another. So in the interests of clarity, I'm posting this for consideration. Does the community support/oppose the lifting of all restrictions that are currently active on Apteva? As far as I understand, the current restrictions are

Apteva's active restrictions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apteva is only to edit using one account Apteva is topic banned indefinitely from modifying or discussing the use of dashes, hyphens, or similar types of punctuation, broadly construed, including but not limited to at the manual of style and any requested move discussion, and from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles Apteva is topic banned from proposing the removal of his existing restrictions, at any Wikipedia venue, until 31st January 2014, and is limited to one appeal every six months after that

!Voters are, naturally, free to choose whether they support the lifting of particular restrictions instead of all of them, as they desire. Blackmane (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

How did this get archived after only one day? Apteva (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Threads on AN/I are automatically bot archived after 3 days of inactivity. Counting that the last comment was on Sept 30, it's been four days not one since this thread went inactive. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow where does the time go when you are busy~ Finished the chart with 81 translations, had to log out to use it (which is what I am trying to eliminate) and the article it would go in is semiprotected, but I can of course add it to 80 other wikis in that native language. Mostly I just create charts and let someone else figure out whether, where, and how to use them, but the one I am waiting to add would be worth putting into the article. It is not semi-protected so I can log out and add it but that makes no sense. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

More charts added. Would like to be able to use some, replacing older non-SVG ones. Apteva (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• The nature of the request, the lack of clarity, the unexplained urgency, all this makes me quite uncomfortable. Apteva seems to be rushing to put out a fire that doesn't exist. I've never had a bad experience with them, but this isn't even 6 months from the last request, which itself was rather muddled. I am guessing I'm not the only one with these types of reservations, based on how few are participating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I still don´t understand how the listed restrictions prevent Apteva from adding charts to articles. Also, he keeps saying he logs out to work around the restrictions, which would seem to me to be ban evasion. Is there some kind of language barrier at play here?--Atlan (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No I have never wanted to or evaded in any way any restriction, and have allowed Wikipedia be worse by doing so. I rarely edit Wikipedia today other than to put into place the charts and images that now occupy almost all of my editing, and update solar articles. I have a backlog of over 6,000 SVGs that have been requested and another 6,000 SVGs to be translated. And that is in addition to the new works that I have created (about 1,700 out of 1,800). Most of the solar articles need to be updated monthly or annually as it is a rapidly changing field.

The reason we allow alternative accounts is because they are necessary. Which means that I can not properly participate. The reason we allow changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa is the MOS requests that. I can not properly edit articles to make them conform to the MOS. I can not appeal these restrictions for six months because someone wants Wikipedia to be worse and not better. This appeal was started long after the six months was up and was archived twice because no one responded. And if you do not think that correcting factual information or correcting hyphens to dashes is not important, why are you even here? The urgency is there is an article on a subject that would greatly benefit by way of illustration from using a chart that was not uploaded using this alternative account and I would like to be able to insert it using the same account that uploaded it (it is PD and I did not create it). Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Apteva: I'm still trying to figure out why you log out to insert these charts.--Adam in MO Talk 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I am primarily an IP user, although now primarily a primary account editor and rarely use this alternative account (created a week later to address things I could not do with the primary account). It would be silly to log out just to add charts here when there is no reason to keep going back and forth. There is no reason to block this account and unblock the primary account, because that would only prohibit me from editing semi-protected solar articles. Anyway, I would prefer removing any reference to my primary account here because it only has the effect of violating my privacy. I will freely disclose the link to anyone who contacts me, unless it is clear that they are only requesting it to try to out me IRL, something that is clearly forbidden. It has never and never will be used in any manner that is in any way a violation of any guideline or policy other than unintentionally by forgetting which account had edited that page. Now that I am only working on charts and plan on not making more than 4 edits a month here, what I want to do is make all four using my primary account so that I can seamlessly edit all 200+ wikis. In most other wikis I still edit as an IP user. Apteva (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the answers to the questions above are too concerning. I remember the disruption that led to the block, and it was a series of enormous time sinks. At the heart of it was always "I am right, you are all wrong, and you simply do not understand why I need to be allowed to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." When blocked, the argument became "you are hurting wikipedia, because you are not allowing me to do whatever I like, in order to make the changes that I have decided wikipedia needs." In the responses above Apteva indicates that they still think they have never done anything wrong apart from a bit of accidental edit-warring as a newbie, and all the rest was caused by others not understanding how right Apteva was and not just letting them do whatever they had decided was correct. I can't support lifting these restrictions in that case, since I am too concerned that their view on what happened in the past is so divorced from the reality of things. I was hoping their answers might make me less concerned, but sadly they did the opposite. Sorry. -- Begoon 15:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that if you are concerned about my answers you are simply not understanding them, probably because they are way too long, and you do not see the value of someone with the username lets call it FooFoo, creating 1800 charts and putting them into an article using that username instead of an alternative username, say FuuFuu other than in article that FuuFuu is editing (it would be a perceived sock violation to use FooFoo)? Please I implore you to allow me to edit using my primary username, instead of making me use "FuuFuu". The least you could do is unblock my primary account and allow me to use it. As you can see this one is tagged "not in use" (other than to reply here). I do not wish to have the block moved as there is no reason to do that, as doing so would simply mean that I would not be able to edit the 150 or so solar articles that I update from time to time. Out of the last 15,000 edits I have probably made 1,000 using this alternative account and it is simply not practical for me to use "FuuFuu". Slows me down way too much to have to every time I want to edit here log out and log in again, and simply prefer to use only one username when possible (the exact same thing that Wikipedia prefers), and these restrictions do only one thing, prevent me from properly improving Wikipedia. Not only are restrictions not supposed to do that but are prohibited from doing that. It would not make any sense to have restrictions that only hurt the development of the encyclopedia, which all of these clearly do, which is why it is urgent to remove them. The idea that I was a sock was brought up simply because I created a graphic in my primary username, as I almost always do and to avoid being a sock put it into the article using the same username that had been editing that article. But then someone clicked on the chart (clicking on a chart is relatively rare - while the charts I have created are viewed over a million times each day, far far fewer click on them), and with no basis for doing so accused this perfectly legitimate, and necessary, alternative account of being a sock which I am not and never have been. I always have and always will follow all guidelines and policies to the best of my ability. When I broke 3RR I had no idea it existed, and a warning would have been much better for Wikipedia than a block. Thanks. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Partial - Yet again, I fail to see why Apteva can only edit by using two accounts. So I do not support removal of that restriction.

I have never seen Apteva as a vandal or deliberately disruptive editor and so have no wish to restrict him in useful work around his interest in solar power. So I'm open to removing restrictions that would prevent this. I would hope that Apteva can recognise what the original problems were and how to avoid a re-run of them. In such a case - and be aware that you will be under some scrutiny - I'd support removing that second restriction, on making stylistic changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support lifting restrictions. If Apteva's editing, under whichever username, becomes a problem, there's enough prior discussion that re-imposing them, or stricter ones, shouldn't be a problem. I'd also like to opine that re-appealing after 5 months when the previous appeal was archived with no decision shouldn't be considered a violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Once again, the same breathless bafflegab from Apteva. I notice that while Apteva has been vigorously campaigning to have ALL his restrictions removed, he's only been providing his breathless and unchanged bafflegab regarding the use of multiple accounts. Just above, he finally lets the mask slip and reveals that he wants to once again take up his ridiculous and timewasting crusade regarding hyphens and endashes, which I suspect was his purpose all along.

You need to put some charts into an article, Apteva? Here's what you do: you put the damned charts in the damned articles. You have an account, so use it.

I note that, despite the fact his second account (Delphi234 (talk · contribs)) has been blocked on Wikipedia, he still uses that account name on Wikimedia Commons, as well as referring to his current Wikipedia account as his "alternate account". This tells me that he does not and has never intended to follow his account restrictions, simply hoping to bide his time but losing patience with this restriction-violating appeal.

Here's what he needs to do: drop this immediately, or I will:

1) go to arbitration enforcement to officially request enforcement of his six-month appeal restriction

2) further ask that the his six-month appeal restriction be lengthened to nine months or a year to prevent -- or at least delay -- future wastes of time.

--Calton | Talk 04:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no WP:POLICY against "breathless and unchanged bafflegab", but I can only agree that he'd make his case so much better if he learned to express it more concisely. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Totally true. It is very difficult for me to respond to "drop this" without knowing what "this" is. I can assure you that "down there" would freeze over long before I would violate any restrictions or create most charts other than using the account which was created before this, or use this Admin wannabe account to insert any charts into virtually any but solar accounts. As I plan on being very careful to make less than 4 edits each month on enwiki (after I finish the other half of the backlog of edits that I know about that piled up while I was blocked and not one has noticed and fixed - the reason is our Wiki stats counts people who have made more than 5, and more than 100 edits a month, and I do not wish to be placed into the wrong category - I rarely make less than 100 edits a month, but they are mostly on commons). Prohibiting me from using my primary account is a huge problem. My only question is: Do you want to benefit or hurt Wikipedia? Each of the restrictions clearly hurts Wikipedia, and removing all of them clearly helps Wikipedia. None of this requires any discussion. But it does require an answer. You can either let me add a PD chart that I uploaded in September now or ten years from now, but it is absurd to wait six months let alone 10 years. So do you want to allow me to make four edits a month with no restrictions and no violation of any guideline or policy or not? I just did a chart that shows how likely someone is to click on an image and if anyone knows of a tool that will tell me the page views of the 3,000 articles that the template that uses that image has, that would be very helpful. Even without including those 3,000 articles, only 1.6% click on the image. Including them probably drops it to closer to 0.001%. Now if you will excuse me, what precious editing time needs to be productive and commenting here is less than useless and I will not make any further edits here. You can either help or hurt Wikipedia and I can no more stop you than I can wave a magic want and eliminate the people who are hurting Wikipedia. I am not one of them. I have created 176 articles, only one of which was deleted, and over 8,000 images. That is a far better use of my time that spending time explaining myself here. I await your positive response and will re-appeal and re-appeal ad nauseam simply because that is the only way I am comfortable contributing. As noted I could invoke IAR, but that simply is not who I am, and refuse to do that. Thanks. This is my last post here. Apteva (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A 12 line reply to a one line comment about verbosity? You're missing the point. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the two-accounts problem just that WP:Unified login is preventing Apteva from being logged in to Commons as Delphi234 (which is blocked here) at the same time as he is logged in to Wikipedia as Apteva? It seems like a simple solution would be to remove the sock block from Delphi234 and add it to Apteva, fixing the login problem without touching the community restrictions. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Regretful oppose lifting restrictions. I like Apteva, but the lack of clarity in this request and the continuing my-restrictions-are-damaging-to-WP tone hold me back. Apteva has produced some wonderful charts (see, for example, File:Asiana Flight 214 Approach to SFO.png). The lack of clarity in this request and its side discussions confuse and trouble me; there are complained about barriers that I just do not see. The restrictions-are-damaging viewpoint is tied to the earlier MOS issues and make me leery. This case is atypical; instead of editing typical content outside the topic ban, Apteva has been updating stats. I'm happy to see the additions, but safe statistics do not risk conflict with other editors or show that earlier issues are being avoided. Apteva is permitted to appeal his restrictions; so this appeal should be closed rather than ignored and archived. Glrx (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment So far, I think I've come to figure out that Apteva really just wants to be able to use their Delphi account to add charts and graphs while Apteva would be limited to, occasionally, editing solar related articles. Since their other restriction, concerning MOS, is not really central to this request, and there is no evidence of a problematic editing history, then I could support only lifting the single account restriction. @Apteva: it would be really helpful, in general, if your comments were generally clearer. You also have a tendency to go on and on and on, not to mention your predilection for pompous self importance. Blackmane (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  One of the problems with that is that Apteva says they do not want the two accounts linked for ill-defined "privacy" reasons (even though it is trivial to make the link). That would leave a situation where the remaining sanctions need to apply to two "unlinked" accounts (but nobody can 'know' this for 'privacy' reasons, I think...it's hard to tell because of all the waffle...). With Apteva's predilection for opaque argumentation I can see many ways that could become an administrative nightmare. Additionally, I share the concern expressed above that whilst Apteva is lobbying to have ALL restrictions removed, they are being careful to concentrate only on discussing the "one account" aspect, since they know there will be less opposition to that (see my concerns in the section below). The restrictions work together, but have the potential to become more troublesome when split like this, especially when there is nothing which they say they wish to do that they are currently unable to do with the Apteva account. I can't support allowing them to restart the dash-hyphen nonsense by removing that restriction, therefore I can't support making it more complex to enforce for no genuine reason. -- Begoon 05:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

  While true, the linkage between their accounts is already pretty well known, particularly following the discussion here and for anyone who knows how to dig through archives. If we ignore that, the only solution would be to require that Apteva privately notify Arbcom of the linkage between the accounts but not have that publicly declared. While I find their tendency to go off on all sorts of tangents as annoying as everyone else, once one parses through the bafflegab, then what they want is fairly evident and it's not really a major deal. After all, restrictions apply to the account holder and not to the account. To frame it succinctly

1. The restriction of having only one account is lifted.
2. Apteva must notify Arbcom of the link between the two accounts. Should Apteva wish to create further accounts, Arbcom must be notified.
3. The remaining MOS topic ban applies to all accounts
4. The appeal restriction applies to all accounts until an appeal is successful.

Blackmane (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Well... just to play that through... then ARBCOM alone would be responsible for actively monitoring compliance of the other account(s) with the remaining sanctions? Because nobody else would "know" to which accounts the sanctions applied? And how would they 'enforce' the sanction on an 'alternative' account without 'outing' it? Sorry, but to me it just becomes more silly the more I consider it. There just is no need to invent things like this so that Apteva can do what Apteva can already do. -- Begoon 11:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon: (edit conflict) I think we kind of have to work under the honour system when it comes to that. Whether Apteva has a one-account restriction, or another restriction, or both, is actually irrelevant to the question of whether he is allowed engage in sockpuppetry to bypass any of his restrictions. Doing so would be a serious breach regardless of whether he is technically banned from using more than one account. I am not technically under any one-account restriction (I was told to stop jumping from one account to the next back during some ugliness in 2013, but it was not formalized because of the circumstances), but I would still be in breach if I used an alternate account to make edits that one of the restrictions I am subject to. Conversely, there is nothing technically stopping me from doing so, assuming ARBCOM or some other CU (?) doesn't "out" me. The exact same thing applies to Apteva, whether any of his restrictions are lifted or not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Begoon:This is just my two cents and how I'm reading the request. My thinking is assuming community consensus is that Apteva's single account restriction is lifted, there must be some way that their two accounts must be linked, else there'll be sockpuppet accusations some time down the track. If community consensus is against the lifting of restrictions then my proposal is moot, and that's also fine by me. Blackmane (talk) 00:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #2 - Renaming

Rename Apteva's account here to their choice of name, to match that at Commons. This leaves them with one consistently named account, no alternative account(s) and avoids problems with unified login. They can then do what they wish (subject to any remaining restrictions) without hindrance. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• support as proposer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• conditional support seems reasonable with the condition that Apteva is okay with this option as it is a forced account name change otherwise. PaleAqua (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Edit: striking !vote per comment at my talk commons page. PaleAqua (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Link: Commons:User talk:PaleAqua#enwiki:ani

Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal #3 - Indef ban

• After this piece of snark at another editor, I would now favour an indef ban, with reviews limited to 12 months at most.

Apteva has no insight into their behaviour at WP and why this has for so long been a problem. They have wasted substantial amounts of other editor's time in trying repeatedly to explain this. They still demand their "alternate accounts" for no clearly discernible purpose. There is no reason why they cannot already do whatever useful edits they wish to, without this Apteva / Delphi234 business.

Enough. Time to throw away the key. Let other people get on with something more useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'll agree with some of the assessment, but lack of personal insight and confusion are not reasons for an indef. Glrx (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Close to support. I started out above thinking it had been a long time, AGF, people change, people learn, all those good thoughts... By now Apteva has eroded all of that by demonstrating no change of attitude, no understanding of why past behaviour was unacceptable, telling multiple editors they must either support or Apteva has "no idea why they are here.", and that not doing exactly what Apteva wants is just "hurting" wikipedia. It just gets worse. Apteva responded to my comment about their persistently telling others that they just do not understand why Apteva is right and everyone else wrong by... telling me I probably just didn't understand why Apteva was right... More walls of impenetrable blather, more wasted time... The final nail for me is the indication of a desire to recommence the dash/hyphen nonsense. That makes me shudder. So, I almost support this, and reaffirm my opposition to lifting of any restrictions. -- Begoon 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Forgive me, but I missed it. Where is "the indication of a desire to recommence the dash/hyphen nonsense"? That's a pretty big nail. Glrx (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  "...Which means that I can not properly participate. The reason we allow changing dashes to hyphens and vice versa is the MOS requests that. I can not properly edit articles to make them conform to the MOS. I can not appeal these restrictions for six months because someone wants Wikipedia to be worse and not better. This appeal was started long after the six months was up and was archived twice because no one responded. And if you do not think that correcting factual information or correcting hyphens to dashes is not^(sic) important, why are you even here?" - [258]. That's how I read it anyway, but as usual with Apteva it's wrapped in vagueness and rambling rhetoric. -- Begoon 02:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  To answer 50.0.205.96 below, this one diff obviously isn't enough on its own, but the quote above might make it clearer. So, so many of Apteva's edits are not content-based, but are to denigrate other editors like this, claiming that anyone who sees a problem with their behaviour they "want[s] Wikipedia to be worse and not better". Enough is enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Thanks for the quotation. I took the "to make them conform to the MOS" as dominant (and different from Apteva's past behavior), but MOS is an area that Apteva should avoid. Yes, there is a house style, but the delta between Spanish-American War and Spanish–American War is small and won't confuse readers. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  It can be read that way. I read it in conjunction with this other comment: "Sanctions are trivial to impose and with lees than a minutes discussion can be reimposed if there was any hint of the tireless, dogged war I pursued in the past to change the MOS to what it became anyway! Hows that for being right?" and, cutting through the indignant, pouting sarcasm, was left with the impression that Apteva believes the position they took in the past is "vindicated", and they would now be free to make the changes they always wanted to, if it weren't for those pesky restrictions... I simply do not trust Apteva to be involved in judging and implementing that without disruption. They fixate, binary fashion, on being "right", when being "right" was never the main issue, although Apteva seems to think their notion of "right" justifies any amount of disruption - hence their repeated position that they "never did anything wrong". All in all, too many red warning lights for me. -- Begoon 00:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not bothered much by Andy's diff taken in isolation, and don't feel like wading into the bigger context enough to support or oppose the ban proposal. But Apteva, really, if you have useful content (charts or whatever) to add to articles, I urge thinking like a content editor and realizing that the MOS is nothing but a circlejerk. Normal human readers come to Wikipedia for content and don't care in the least if punctuation style differs between articles or even within an article. So go ahead and add the charts without worrying about whether that leaves the hyphen style inconsistent (or whatever), regardless of what the MOS says. If someone else is obsessive enough to notice, they can fix it eventually. If they never notice and it stays inconsistent, that's fine too. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Umm... you really should read at least the first few comments in a thread before responding. Apteva is asking for a ban to be lifted. It is against policy to edit Wikipedia while ignoring one's own editing restrictions because readers don't care. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I did read the request. I understood the complaint to be that Apteva wanted to add useful info such as charts to articles, but felt that doing so within his restriction would bring or leave the article out of conformance with the MOS. So he asked for the restriction to be lifted. My suggestion was "stay within the restriction and add the info anyway, and don't worry about the resulting MOS non-conformance". Maybe I still misunderstood, but I did spend a while trying to figure out what was being asked. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The second and third sentences in the request describe the restriction in question regarding charts, which is unrelated to the manual of style. isaacl (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See Only In Death's post of 10:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC) for the explanation that I went with. The original request is hard to figure out but it doesn't appear to contradict OID's explanation. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (Added: The main thing I was trying to get across anyway, was encouragement for Apteva to do useful things instead of obsessing about the MOS. 50.0.205.96 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Prolific disruptor is back

IP Special:Contributions/27.252.142.124 is making apparently automated disruptive edits - Onehunga Line, Onehunga Branch, Downtown Shopping Centre, and many others, most notably articles about Auckland and The Philippines. The edits are on the same articles, and with exactly the same content, as edits made by IP Special:Contributions/27.252.145.37 which was blocked. Also, the IP range 27.252 with other .suffixes has been warned for similar behavior. He/she never leaves an edit summary and responds to reverts and warnings with reverts to his version. Please block this disruptor permanently. Akld guy (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User 59.189.112.120 appears to be using synthesis

59.189.112.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appears to be using wp:synthesis to support that Yuan T. Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is of the Hoklo people. The IP also added Lee to Hoklo people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The reference here in Chinese. The machine translation does not appear to support that Lee is Hokkien. According to the ref, Lee is from Quanzhou which the IP associates with the Hokkien people. However, while the article Quanzhou mentions Hokkien (a dialect), it does not mention Hoklo people nor Hokkin people. I reverted the IP's initial addition of the Lee photo to Hoklo people as unsourced. The IP said I should have done some research. I mentioned wp:burden to the IP and asked if the conclusion was synthesis, but, just received this abuse without answering my question of synthesis. As the IP seems unwilling to discuss the synthesis issue with me, would someone please take a look at this? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have answered your question but you failed to answer mine, I asked you what chinese clan shares the same village however you failed to answer. As the citation has stated, Yuan T. Lee's ancestors were from the same village as the MIng Dynasty philosopher Li Zhi, it is an undoubted fact that Li Zhi is a hokkien and also an undoubted fact that dialect clans only live with each other in the same village and no other clans, whoever heard of hakkas living in the same vilage as cantonese, remember how cantonese killed 1 million hakkas? Therefore I conclude that Yuan T. Lee is of hoklo ancestry, and sorry for getting angry at you, but I have very low tolerance for people with low intelligence, I hope that now with more detailed explanation you are now able to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.112.120 (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138:: Can you direct the administrators to the WP:DR attempts you have tried already to address the issue? If not, then there is nothing we can do for you. This is a normal editing dispute, and admins aren't here to "solve" those kind of issues. --Jayron32 09:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claims of having spammed Wikipedia

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

---

This is about [259] and several reverts done by Elizium23 in the name of WP:SPAM in different articles.

To claim that rendering the viewpoints of a Harvard Bible scholar would amount to spam is dubious. See http://hds.harvard.edu/people/mark-d-jordan Tgeorgescu (talk)

This is a content dispute, not an incident that admins can solve. Go and hash it out on the appropriate talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So, providing fake warnings ({{uw-tempabuse1}}) and using dubious summaries ({{uw-wrongsummary}}) is a content dispute? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Any reference can be spammed, not just bad ones. ANI isn't the first place you go. I don't see a discussion on yours or his talk page, that is the place to start. Discuss first and see if you can come to an understanding. Ask why he is doing that, tell him why you are adding it, etc. If you can't work it out, a larger discussion is due, but not necessarily at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have started a discussion in his talk page. Originally, I thought that the reverts apply to only one article, so I had started a discussion in the talk page of that article, but prefer to do it centralized. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, the suggestion was to discuss the issue, not to hector your opponent. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

He's just going the extra mile. EEng 03:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am happy with this centralized discussion right here. Let's talk about hasty accusations of template abuse, hasty accusations of "serial vandal" behavior [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] "went on a bit of a rampage", and misuse of the "minor edit" feature (see all previous diffs) (I would assume that would be meant to indicate vandalism reverts). Yes, I am offended that all this went down without any effort to discuss it with me. And I think that I might have done better if I had contacted the IP in an effort to discuss, before I reverted everything for WP:SPAM. So, mea culpa. Elizium23 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I believed the aforementioned edit to be WP:SPAM because it was indiscriminately added to nine disparate articles. This was not my first conclusion. I was at first inclined to let the text stand in the article Eastern Orthodox Church. I edited it for tone and neutrality. Then, I checked the IP user's contributions. When I found the same text copy-pasted into nine articles, then I went back and undertook a WP:SPAM revert. This is common for me because I often see authors inserting their own books into Wikipedia. It's called refspam. I don't care what the text says, in February I removed some pro-church links [267] because they were spam and one was not in English. Once again, I am sorry that I acted hastily in doing a mass revert. Discussion would have been fruitful this time. I apologize. Elizium23 (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• At this point I would like to respectfully ask the community two questions.

1. What are we going to do about the blatant WP:NPOV violations re-introduced by undoing my reverts on nine different pages?
2. If the proposed additions are to stay, then how can we justify the same copy-paste paragraph in nine disparate articles? Is there precedent for such a move? Frankly, call me lazy - but if I see the same NPOV violations in nine different articles I'm going to be more likely to just remove it rather than tinkering with each one and hoping they are maintained correctly. It seems to me that the Wiki way of doing things is to centralize the prose and then link to it. If a paragraph demands inclusion in nine different articles then perhaps it deserves to be in an article or template of its own. Elizium23 (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any WP:NPOV violation. Remember that WP:RNPOV says that we should render both theological and secular scholarly views upon religion. I fail to see how rendering Bible scholarship by a Harvard professor would violate WP:NPOV. The question if that information is appropriate to each of those articles has to be decided separately for each article. E.g. the information is definitely germane to Religious views on masturbation, so it should not be removed from there. It is germane to the topic of theological inerrancy/infallibility, so I believe that should not be deleted from an article addressing theological inerrancy/infallibility. It is also germane to church history: Catholic/Eastern Orthodox theology did not arise perfect as Athena from the head of Zeus, but it was a historical process among multiple players, some of whom were originally considered orthodox but later condemned as heretic, some who are still considered orthodox. Anyway, there were debates among different views for what should be accepted as orthodox by those churches (originally these were one and the same church).

I don't approve of the summary "reverting vandalism" either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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