Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Hundreds of garbage articles created by blocked user

John Carter (who is currently blocked indef) has created 655 pages. So far, 103 have been deleted and another group are at AfD. They are nonsense. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabal ad Dayt for an example. I clicked on some of the notices on his talkpage about other creations that were deleted and they are nonsense as well. It would probably be a good idea for someone to review all of these articles, because this is a pretty poor track record. I do not want to go through 500 pages on my own. Natureium (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

FYI Alexandermcnabb is meticulously combing through these. There are several threads on A's talk page regarding these including this one User talk:Alexandermcnabb#A cup of coffee for you!. MarnetteD|Talk 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow, what a saint. Natureium (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I accept the beatitude with grateful thanks. Mind, I could use some help. There IS some good in there, the odd nugget, but there's an awful lot of total rubbish and over the past ten years it's spawned hundreds, if not thousands, of WP-derived web pages in/about the UAE. Each of those damn stubs has, in ten years, created a virtual universe of non-existent places offering tours, trips, car hire, shoes - maps citing WP, WP citing maps. He made his whole own UAE on WP. I've been AfDing the articles individually (which has caused some irritation, I know, but a) I didn't know how to bulk AfD and b) I was scared of WP:Traincrash. There were a few of the 'settlement' stubs which had their staunch defenders despite the places totally lacking in notability, for instance this Dahir, Fujairah and this one, which is a residential block in the city of Ras Al Khaimah Al Mataf). I'm now trying to bulk AfD them where relevant but have to admit the task is Augean. I didn't know he'd created 655 pages and do fervently hope they aren't all UAE stubs because it's caused an immense amount of confusion and damage. Hey ho! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

These really need a Neelix-esque nuke approach. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think I reached the end. He's created thousands and thousands of categories and redirects, but appears to have only (relatively) briefly focused on the UAE's geography. Someone may like to take a look at the rest of the creations... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dang... that's a lot of articles. Thank you, Alexandermcnabb, for going through them. Looking at the user's contributions and filtering to show only mainspace edits that are page creations, there's... wow... a ton of redirects that go many years back. If I can be of any assistance, or if any tools like Special:Nuke might make anything go faster, let me know and I'll be happy to help. We just want to make sure that we don't go crazy and delete anything that is legitimate and shouldn't be. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah but I'm done with my bit - I got involved when his edits touched geography in the UAE and I stumbled on the considerable mess that got left behind - and that's what I've been cleaning up, article by article and AfD by (sometimes contested!) AfD. But I'm no good on the Wiki procedural stuff (what's a valid redirect, what's not? Are all those thousands of categories necessary/needed?). I'm a little concerned that if all that other stuff is of the same quality/utility of the stuff I found, and where I have occasionally dipped in while paging through his edits to find if he'd done any more UAE stuff I hadn't so far found (I didn't see that he had) it was of dubious utility as far as I could see. But I am no WP procedural wonk, I have to leave that to you guys! Even making a bulk AfD work had my head bursting... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Lugnuts, given the scale of the issue here, why don't we simply nuke first and ask questions later ie delete them all, and if any turn out to be notable (unlikely) in the future they can be restored? GiantSnowman 15:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: it seems like Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987; see Google Books profile) was cited, but without page numbers. I think Wikipedia:RX might be able to supply a copy? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I have took a couple more articles of the UAE stubs that are not notable to AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexandermcnabb: Did you find any of the articles to be correct or were they all garbage? Natureium (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: There were a couple of names were right (but they were still nine-word stubs with wacky pins), a couple of the settlements scraped through AfD. 98% cruft, I'd say. Are there any left to nuke? Thought I'd got 'em all. It's the non-UAE stuff I thought might need a bit of scrutiny!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I agree all of the UAE stubs need to be mass nuked. It's exhausting AfD and exhausting the time and patience and research of many users to have to deal with them. I agree this is a Neelix-level cleanup, but unfortunately unlike the Neelix creations, since these are articles (as opposed to redirects), the hundreds of inaccurate decade-old stubs have created a massive amount of misinformation spread all over the internet. This is, literally, a Wikipedia's worst nightmare scenario. Softlavender (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of slightly changing the title of this thread to emphasize the scale of the problem. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support a mass delete, to make it crystal clear/easy to see for reviewing admin. GiantSnowman 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment even though he cited the Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987), he never cited page numbers, ISBNs, etc. There really is a Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates published by the Defense Mapping Agency so hopefully someone gets a copy of it and actually uses it... WhisperToMe (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Gazetteer_of_the_United_Arab_Emirates I am checking to see if I can get the table of contents and/or the index from this book. That way I can share it with other Wikipedians and it can be determined which pages are needed. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• support nuking all the articles. I will go through all the creations after 18 hours from now. If something that exists and is notable, someone would create it again eventually; and these creations can be reviewed as they come in. There is no point in wasting time and energy veryfying everything that this editor has created. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do think people are scared away of re-creating deleted pages, even if the topics do turn out to be notable. However I am not opposed to a mass-delete as John Carter did a poor job of citing things. By getting the index it can make verification much easier. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Funnily enough, I took another one of these stubs to AFD as John Carter pin-pointed the location directly in the sea. This is absolutely awful and the creator said that it is "a location in Fujairah". I support a careful mass-deletion of these stubs. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
      • All valid arguments. But I still feel this is the best option. Or maybe we can draftify everything? Upon verification, it can be added back to mainspace. Is there any way to avoid deletion of drafts after the inactivity period? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
        • We've already gone through and sent a number of these to AfD. I think we're nearly done. No reason to nuke everything now. A pinpoint into the sea for a coastal area is common where the point is only accurate to degrees and minutes, between 1.1 and 11km... see: Decimal_degrees SportingFlyer talk 02:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we need to be careful not to delete anything that has survived an AfD. A few of these places really do exist. The errors in the pin positions are largely due to rounding (not using enough decimal places) and are easily corrected. It would appear that an entry in the Gazeteer cannot be taken as proof of existence. That same data is also in online databases like geographic.org which contains all the many entries we now know definitely don't exist thanks to Alexander's work on the ground. SpinningSpark 23:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: do you think draftifying everything can be an option? (Kindly see my reply above.) —usernamekiran(talk) 01:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • No. It will just lie dormant for six months and then get G13'd. SpinningSpark 11:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• WhisperToMe Asked me to share how I think this all happened. In 1959, the Trucial Oman Scouts did a survey of the area by basically wandering around and asking people where they were (imagine a couple of Brits in short trousers bombing around in a Land Rover Defender). So if they stopped (and they often did) at a well with a couple of tents by it, they'd ask 'Where's this?' and the locals would shrug and say 'Well' or 'Wadi Helou' (literally, BTW, 'sweet wadi') or whatever. As far as I can tell, the Brits also used data from John Lorimer's 1915 Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf which is compendious, but contains some very quaint spellings/transliterations from Arabic. So we have a couple of VERY out of date sources (given that in 1959 the interior of the Trucial States was still bandit country and even the oil companies were having a hard time getting access to the interior and then the breakneck development of here since then, it's safe to say 99.9% of things have changed. Some haven't, which is always nice to find!). ANYWAY, that survey was picked up and used as the source of a Gazetteer in 1974 by Abu Dhabi and that source was in turn picked up by the American Defence Mapping Agency in 1987. Hope they don't use that data for targeting otherwise a bunch of wells and seasonal Bedouin encampments are really going to know what's hit 'em. So the info you're looking at is at least 59 years out of date and features mad transliteration. We still have issues with transliterating from Arabic today and place names in the UAE can often be spelled 2-3 ways on different signs. I remember going to the village of HabHab and seeing a sign on the police station 'HebHeb Police Station'. End result? Mr Carter would appear to have happily banged all those place names into WP along with 'is a city in Sharjah' or 'is a location in Ajman' or 'is a mountain' or 'is a tribal area in Dubai'. I'd say the mess is pretty much cleared up now, but the above is how I reckon we got here. What scares me is the information STOOD FOR TEN YEARS mostly unchallenged. I mean, good grief. Best to all Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And I could understand someone saying "well the Defense Mapping Agency has to know what they're doing!" Yet it turns out they had bad data. This is why I'm glad I inquired on the source: that way people can learn from this and take more due diligence on their sourcing. While I could understand Carter believing in the verifiability of the agency's work, I still think there should have been an effort to get page numbers, and also to get some background info on the source before using it. That's also why I have Wikipedia articles written on books being used by Wikipedia as sources: so people know about the sources they're using. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I think he batch-created these articles from a geographic database which already had input the outdated information. I highly doubt he actually had the page number of anything in the gazetteer. SportingFlyer talk 00:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • wow. Under these circumstances, I think we should not keep any margin for error. What I mean is, we should not have articles about towns-settlements and similar things if they dont exist. And we have no way to verify these articles; as most of the usual RS are now flawed (and/or based on something which is flawed). As I said in my fist comment, we should delete everything. If it exists, and is notable; someone would eventually create the article for it. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It should be cleaned up now. Someone might want to page through the thousands of JC's redirects and category creations and decide whether they're valid, someone might want to close the UAE AfDs now (the bulk ones, of course - after some complained loudly about the volume of individual ones - have attracted few votes) but the UAE geostubs are gone, baby, gone. We've retained the few valid/semi-valid ones. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Assuming John Carter did just batch create it... it's too bad. Anyway I got scans of the original Gazetteer of the United Arab Emirates (1987) and according to that work, these are the "principal sources":

• The United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, GEOProjects (Beirut) in association with Oxford University Press, 1981.
• Joint Operations Graphic, 1:250,000, U.S. Defense Agency or U.K. Director of Military Survey, 1966-1984
• United Arab Emirates, 1:750,000, Ministry of Cabinet Affairs, Abu Dhabi, 1974.
• Trucial States, Muscat-Oman, 1:100,000, U.K. Director of Military of Survey, 1959-1971.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• oppose a batch delete of all articles created by John Carter. Some of the articles created by this user have passed AfD: e.g. Lulayyah, [1], [2]. The most recent AfD's can be seen at User_talk:John_Carter. It's true most got deleted, but not all of them.

We need a list of the entire subset of 655 articles in question that are proposed to be deleted. We need an opportunity to consider all of them, and each of them individually, as necessary. Just because 100 have been deleted, doesn't mean that entire oeuvre of the editor who has been here 10 years is equally bad. Perhaps the 100 deleted are the worst ones, and the reason so many of the others have remained is because they are not as bad as those 100? I don't know. Without the list of what is left, I cannot assess.

I do appreciate the work of Alexandermcnabb and Natureium in putting the questionable ones to AfD. It sounds like s/he might need help with that work. I might be interested in that, if the list is given and is easy to work with. Perhaps a work area that lists them all, offers opportunities for feedback on each of the articles proposed to be deleted, before they go to AfD.

Are there other examples of mass deletions? If so, where? I am disinclined to any kind of mass deletion unless it is easy to prove that *every* item in the list should not be in the encyclopedia. I am not convinced every article created by John Carter needs to be deleted.

If a group of articles were all created on one day with a piece of software as a batch file with little or no effort, and no one has touched those articles since then, I might support a batch delete of articles that were batch created. But we need to have some sort of clear standards on differentiating articles that have been around and improved and deserve to stay from articles that should never have been created in the first place.

It would be nice to hear what John Carter would say. Does he even have talk page privilege? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Articles created by Sander.v.Ginkel were mass-deleted (actually, by me) after an extensive community discussion and some salvage attempts.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter Where is that discussed? I don't see it on his talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

See User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up, it has further links--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support mass deleting all of the stubs. While it's clear John Carter made a lot of friends on article talkpages discussing things (50% of his edits), especially in his first couple of years on Wikipedia, his mainspace edits were only 13% of his editing and left much to be desired [3]. The distressingly inaccurate and unresearched stubs, relying only on an inaccurate and extremely outdated source, are too problematic to let stand, and too numerous to pore over singly at this point after Alexander McNabb has found 99% of them to be demonstrably false (he has lived in the UAE for 25 years and has even driven to the putative sites to check on the putative locations of these inaccurate article stubs). The good will JC garnered on article talk has seemingly blinded the community to the problems of his mainspace editing. His indef is sort of symptomatic of that, in that we didn't see he was a disruptive or problem editor until well down the line. Softlavender (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: As WhisperToMe shows above, the stubs are based on hopelessly out of date information and archaic transliteration of Arabic that that's been through a sort of government to government Chinese Whispers process and bears almost (like 99%) no resemblance to the modern human geography of the UAE. ALL of the UAE geostubs that SHOULD have been AfDd have been nominated (it would be nice to close them all, BTW!!!!). So as far as this stuff goes, we're good. Whatever ELSE Mr Carter created needs to be scanned by an admin, IMHO, but the UAE stuff has now been cleaned up. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Nuke him Better that 100 valid articles be deleted than that one blatant garbage article remain. EEng 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

None of this encyclopedia would be left if we nuked 100 valid articles for every 1 garbage article. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• It'd be more productive if a couple of people could look for the AfD nominations and slip a vote in so we can get the bad articles deleted: there's a danger they'll fail AfD because of lack of consensus and remain by default simply because nobody's voted on 'em. This one Bani 'Udayd, for example. It's noteworthy that the individual AfDs I did created a fuss with some users shaking fists at me for overloading Articles for Deletion and yet the bulk AfDs have generally attracted fewer votes. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Alexandermcnabb, if you want the articles deleted, then !vote support for mass deletion. At this point no one wants to wade through another hundred AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated uncivil verbal abuse in film articles

Seems like some people are really frustrated. The Mohanlal v Mammootty fan wars has gone one step ahead, now a weird version of it is taking place in Wikipedia. Since 13th October, an IP (or IPs) was persistently trying to edit Mohanlal's name in Odiyan (an upcoming much anticipated film in the industry) cast list and replacing it with extreme foul language (Malayalam written in English letters). An otherwise less edited page, on that day there was at least 120 edits, warring to add the profanity.

Some IPs are:

• 2405:204:D105:E05F:EC1F:93DF:BBAB:3519 (14 edits) - most disruptive (also edited Kayamkulam Kochunni)
• 2405:204:D302:3DB1:D9AD:D0AA:A5B6:FE55 (3)
• 86.98.84.7 (1)
• 2405:204:D48B:93CF:346A:3D8C:26FE:8EF1 (2)
• 2405:204:D308:7024:5208:43DF:5B9E:8A86 (4)
• 137.97.155.163 (10) - most disruptive (also in Mohanlal regular collaborator Antony Perumbavoor)
• 49.15.207.246 (1)
• 42.111.228.116 (1)
• 78.100.162.226 (1)
• 2405:204:D401:C999:A711:D1EB:E234:868F (2)
• 2405:204:519E:B978:3F78:3C0A:BEDB:40E8 (2)
• 2405:204:D08B:9642:0:0:1E85:E8A1 (2)
• 43.239.55.13 (2)
• 2405:204:659A:E1A6:904D:6515:3C4D:FB90 (2)
• 83.110.229.77 (1)
• 2405:204:D206:94C3:79CD:B692:225B:ED5A (1)
• 2405:204:D282:32E5:0:0:2480:B8A4 (1)
• 45.125.117.2 (2)

Finally the page was protected for disruptive editing. Unable to vandalize Odiyan, the target shifted to Mohanlal's Pulimurugan (the top-grossing Malayalam film).

• 27.61.41.50 ([4], [5]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([6])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([7]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([8]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([9])

The page was soon protected. If you observe here, 27.61.22.115 and Fayismuhammed edited in 1 minute gap with same edit summary. Fayismuhammed, an otherwise inactive user came at the same time ? You know what I mean. Check his contributions, it's all box-office vandalism, adding inflated numbers in Mammootty films (Rajamanikyam, Pokkiri Raja) and diminishing them in Mohanlal films (Drishyam, Pulimurugan). Same obscene words used by IPs here was also seen in Odiyan, so it's possibly the same person.

Then other IPs began returning the favour, doing the same in Mammootty films. But is less occuring when compared to the vandal spree in Odiyan and Pulimurugan. On 17th October, Frz latheef undid such an edit in a Mammootty film [10] at 21:29 UTC. Just a minute after, this IP went savage adding profanity in a number of Mohanlal films. It was from 21:30 UTC to 21:39 UTC just after Frz latheef's edit. Maybe his retaliation ?

Instead of protecting the pages and preventing good faith editors too, blocking the problematic IPs/Users will be more effective. After all, how many pages can you protect. Both the M's has acted in more than 300 films each. 2405:204:D483:E219:BC9B:BFD2:524F:F1C1 (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've done some blocking. I think an edit-filter would be useful here, and I'm going to request it. Can you let me know on my talk page of any further issues? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the diverse IP ranges and edits made, I agree with Black Kite that an edit filter will probably be the best solution to this matter... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the tightest range here is an IPv6 /32, which is much too large to block. It's regrettable but this is why we have semiprotection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree; semi-protection will be helpful, but it won't stop further disruption from spilling over and spreading to other articles and we'll essentially be playing "whack-a-mole", which would be both beneficial and convenient to avoid if we can do so. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, Ivanvector. Why are you not blocking them ? Today they have started it in Mohanlal's upcoming films Drama ([11], [12], [13], [14]) and Lucifer (film) ([15]). You think this is going to stop ? Unless you apply a range block, I don't think so. 2405:204:D18A:ACC0:A859:7843:4744:8F26 (talk) 08:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocking individual IPs has already been an active task performed as noted by Black Kite above. Given the ranges available to the user and what I calculated from the IPs listed here - they could just hop onto another IP and continue with their "business as usual". The IPv6 range (2405:204::/32) is much too wide to block and it would result in a lot of collateral damage as seen by the range's edit contributions. The IPv4 addresses listed here all come from different ranges and would be useless to try and pursue. I just applied semi-protection to the two articles you listed in your response above. Are there disruptive edits continuing to actively occur at this moment in time and on other articles or pages? If so, can you list these articles and pages here so that I can take a look? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that I did rangeblock a smaller subset of that IPv6 range because all of the recent contributions appeared to be about this subject. However as Oshwah says the IPv4s are just popping up all over various ranges and I can see no rangeblock for any of them that would not cause significant collateral issues. Semi-protection and/or edit-filter is the main way to proceed here. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

(Edit: the 42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x range appears to have very little collateral so I have temporarily rangeblocked that.) Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with applying a useful range block, IP, is that it would also block your IP. That's the "collateral" problem here, we can't technically sort the good edits from the bad. We're doing the best we can. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite's block on "42.109.136.x - 42.109.146.x" translates to 42.109.128.0/19 in CIDR notation, for those who don't know how to calculate those. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, Oshwah, now it's in Neerali ([16], [17], [18] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [19], also Untitled K. V. Anand film. Any blocking possible ? 2405:204:D489:DA38:79C2:3D18:F628:DB52 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added semi-protection to all three articles listed here, and blocked 188.236.128.0/19 due to their disruption to them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite & Oshwah, the person has now created an account User:Itheillu and started abusing Mohanlal in Villain (2017 film), 1971: Beyond Borders, Velipadinte Pusthakam. Also in IPv6 - Villain [20], [21]; 1971: Beyond Borders [22], [23]. It is now clear that Fayismuhammed is the guy, you can see the user abusing Mohanlal here at the same time with IPv6. It's a vandalism-only account and should be blocked. Please do what is necessary for the IPs. 2405:204:D306:848F:F16B:4C84:1F6F:8D15 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite and Oshwah:, repinging for the IP ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One more: Shajil_369.2405:204:D286:3C77:ECD7:174:E1ED:4AA6 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

IP posting "porn"

User 87.254.70.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/87.254.70.8 is in a rampage posting "porn" images. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked by RickinBaltimore. TedEdwards 16:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we also RevDel the offensive edits? Altamel (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Already done by somebody.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the diffs, and added the soon-to-be-deleted-on-Commons image file to the badimages list. Raul654 blocked an earlier IP doing the same thing. I expect more attempts once they obtain another IP. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We really need to get to work on some image-rec software to filter out uploads at commons of the usual suspects. This is not the first time I've seen this exact form of vandalism using the goatse image. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the image, now they will need to upload a new one.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Ymblanter:, @RickinBaltimore:, They had another image currently in 2018 Yilan train derailment, please delete the image and protect the article (despite it is a current event and some ip may do good faith edit). user:matthew_hk 17:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

They created a new account on Commons. Can we block the commons user and delete the image? Altamel (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

All done, pls ping me if there is more admin help on Commons needed, I should be reasonably active for three more hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:87.254.84.46, posting File:Nature 1.png. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: User:178.16.10.94, posting File:D8c.png Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm imagining that this IP is actually a spy, sending a secret signal by doing this, and that the pages and images were "chosen at random" by their superior who's had it out for them for a long time. So now there's some young CIA handler at an embassy somewhere pounding their forehead on the desk as they keep trying to let their field assets know their cover is blown, but the edits just keep getting removed.

Pretty soon, he'll give up, grab a pistol out of his desk drawer and start running across the city on foot while techno music plays in the background, hoping desperately to find his operator in time.

Across town, said operator is looking at a cached diff of one of their assigned WP pages thinking "Is that the 'proceed with caution' butthole or the 'your cover is blown' butthole?"

Meanwhile, right outside his door, some foreign operator carrying a .22 pistol with a huge can is listening to his earpiece telling him "the butthole is live, move now!" in Russian. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm billing you for a new keyboard for the one I just ruined laughing at that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

MPants at work That was awesome! I will save the diff where you wrote that, as it is now one of my new favorite things ever. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• @RickinBaltimore and ONUnicorn: Most of my jokes seem to go over like a lead balloon. I'm glad this one made someone laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Just, let's please not read too much into the fact that I'm rewarding that particular comment with an image of a grinning face superimposed over the shape of a star; we're treading pretty close to the line of appropriate wiki-commentary as is... Snow let's rap 23:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you seriously go with a Porn Identity joke? Bravo, sir. Blackmane (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Acroterion: the image you added to WP:BIL has been deleted so it can be gone from the list. Sorry to hear this vandal is back again. Home Lander (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder, I was going to go back and declutter the list. Acroterion (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• Continued, the latest incarnation was 80.65.245.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, if admin help on Commons is needed pls ping me. I will be around for half an hour, then half an hour not available, and then again around for four hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It seem they vandal articles that appears on the front page, as the train accident is a current event, while Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 is today featured article. Matthew hk (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

user:2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31

On 29 July this year (and only on that day) 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:D16C:D88C:E83D:7B31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a large number of edits, all related to merges. The majority of them were to turn articles that had at some point been nominated for merging (almost without exception these proposals had not been documented on a talk page or if they had then no subsequent discussion had taken place) into redirects and removing merge-from tags on destination articles, all without actually merging any content.

I think I have now cleaned-up all the mess they made by restoring articles without prejudice to a merge (some of them look like excellent candidates for merging), except Qaum which is currently being discussed at RfD (how I became aware of the issue) but I'd appreciate someone else taking a look as well, as there were some useful edits in the mix (e.g. removing merge tags from a nomination that received opposition and no support several months ago). It would also be useful if someone who understands IPv6 ranges could take a look to see if any similar edits have been made by similar IPs as it seems very odd behaviour for someone brand new to Wikipedia to do on one day never to be seen again. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

ps: I haven't left a notification as it seems highly unlikely any message left on the talkpage of an IP that hasn't edited since July will be seen by the relevant human being. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the ip was stale (last edit in July). For those merge, if controversial, then revert. For finding the range, the super large range is on whois (Sky Broadband) 2a02:c7d::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You can narrow the range by looking at the contribution, then use {{IP range calculator}}. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hate to tell you, Thryduulf, but the user is still up to the same thing as of 2 days ago as 2A02:C7D:B910:3D00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), so you might yet have work to do. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that it took me about an hour to clean up the mess from one day this is going to require more than just me. Especially as I don't have time to look right now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Judging by their last 50 I think they're now just removing old merge tags, and in at least one case they actually carried out the merge. I think it's safe to say they've learned what they're supposed to do, but like Thryduulf I haven't time to check in detail (and there are a lot of edits). I'd like to get their input on this discussion and ideally have a conversation to reassure us that they are carrying out merges properly, and I'm going to ping them on their most recent IP but pings with IPv6 don't work well and they've been idle for nearly 8 hours now - they'll likely have a new discrete IP by the time they come to edit again. I could use help from other users to keep an eye on the range especially around 06:00-12:00 UTC, and if you see them active please leave a note on their current IP's talk page referring to this discussion or referring to my talk page. I'd rather not use an "attention-getting" rangeblock here, but it's an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Francis March

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am not sure where to post this, but I hope it gets the attention it deserves here. I noticed a ton of edits to the page Francis March today, all by different redlink users whose only contributions to this site are through editing that page. After running a copyvio, mostly everything "they" have added is a violation of copyright from another source. Requesting an admin take a look into this. I'm assuming they are all socks of the same user but am unsure how to open an investigation into that, and if possible I'd like all their revisions deleted and hidden since they contain copyrighted information. Thanks for the help! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This looks to me like a class project or similar rather than sockpuppeting. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look into it now. If there's copyvio involved, the affected material should be deleted. Deor (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, just wanted to make sure the IPs weren't all the same. The usernames were following the same format which is what set the red flag off in my head. I'll fix up the references. As long as the IPs aren't the same I guess this request can be closed! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They can be the same if it was a class-project. It seem a good faith meatsock. All need to do is tag copyvio for individual edit and sent a nice (templated) message to them for not just c&p source expect an essential need to have a direct quote. Matthew hk (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to agree! Copyvio checks out now, the first problem I had with it was a site that pulled directly off Wikipedia. Since it wasn't updated to reflect the current page I didn't notice it at first, but it looks OK now :) SEMMENDINGER (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not that terrible when using wiki mirror site as circular referencing. It sometimes terrible that primary source (e.g. Italian football club) had c&p it-wiki content, that make you misjudge the text was authoritatively correct. Any way, if those are good faith, then there is no urge to continue this thread in ANI, but may be some venue in teahouse or the talk page of the article. Matthew hk (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Holy moly ten redlink editors all on one day. That sounds like a bit of a record for an article on an obscure long-dead person. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rude & Conflictive User:Mystic Technocrat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have engaged in editing and talk with this user and they use extremely rude and conflictive attitudes with all their issues and communications. Request Administrator review conduct and/or warn user. Some of their action also border on edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirsentence (talk • contribs) 2018-10-24T20:37:16 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) report edit warring here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. And it would be good if you provide which sentence in User talk:Mystic Technocrat or User talk:Sirsentence are specifically personal attack. Matthew hk (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I am unamused by both of your conducts. Use the talk page, stop using personal attacks, and assume good faith. --Tarage (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a parody? Two joe jobs? Don't comment if you aren't logged in, either of you. If one of you has been in touch with "many admins over the years", contact them privately. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No. This is a major compulsive obsessive troll who has been using multiple IDs and IPs over the years to disrupt a variety of articles. he's been warned MANY times by maany admin over the years. Toxic material. There is NO goods faith here. Period.95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC) Isn't it a bit unwise to accuse someone of using 'multiple IDs and IPs' while editing logged off in such a way that everyone can see that you've been doing exactly that? 86.147.197.124 (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC) no it's not, the admins I have been in touch with for years are well aware of teh issue. Now here's your signature so you can sleep better. 95.236.216.152 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

non-scrutiny-evading edits go here...

This is some double-edged comedy. Was I rude? Perhaps. I have attempted to engage the user to discuss an issue on the talk page, and he hasn't...and then tells me to stop edit-warring without discussing on talk page...even though I attempted to engage on talk page OVER A MONTH AGO.
As for the IP clown above...he has some weird paranoid belief that I'm involved with some actual vandals who took an interest in a page he edited, despite no evidence whatsoever. For the past 2 to 3 years, his only activity has been trolling every single edit I make. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
As for the issue at hand, all I want is a meaningful discussion on talk page. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You could have at any point, instead of being rude and aggressive, come here, or spoken to an admin you trust. You did neither. And it doesn't excuse your behavior either. Both of you need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rival Sons Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC) (that went down in flames) Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kokborok language / topic ban for editor

Editor Abel Tiprasa has been active since March 2018 on topics relating to the Indian tribal language Kokborok. My first interaction with the editor was during NPP reviewing his article Kokborok script. The article had hallmarks of POV fork soapboxing while at the same time being poorly sourced. The deletion discussion led to the article being redirected to the main topic about Kokborok. By way of background: a) the Kokborok language is a tribal language spoken by various tribes in India; b) the written system of the language has been lost since the 19th century; c) the official writing systems are Bengali or Latin scrip; d) the choice of script is a contentious issue along a political and tribal divide; e) there is a faction within the native speaker group proposing to revitalise a native Kokborok script; f) since the ancient script is lost, the new script is at this point mere proposal, there are many proposals, none of which are adopted. This is supported by these sources: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6). In this diff the user expressed his view that the deleted article about Kokborok script would serve as platform for editors to share ideas about the future of a new script and develop a script. This is clearly not a purpose of Wikipedia. Other disruptive edits include the arbitrary change of native speakers here, addition of a proposed script from a self-created file here, unsourced POV edits such as this. I appreciate the editor's good intentions, however his edits amount to Soapboxing. In line with WP:CASTE I therefore request a topic ban on Kokborok language and script for the editor. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am not sure we're at the point of a topic ban right now. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions on October 23 [24]. Since then, he has conducted just two edits, both of which are non-disruptive [25][26]. It's worth keeping an eye on, but I do not think action against him is warranted at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: the second of the diffs you provided may be considered disruptive: he re-instated the POV-esque content that was previously removed and which he was warned about. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe. I'd get discussion going with him and see where that leads. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been a number of conversations, such as this, where he called an edit "nonsense" assuming the other person does not speak the language and should therefore refrain from edits. This is continued here. Clear in-article soapboxing here. There is this conversation on my talk page in April about the same topic, referring him to key principles of Wikipedia. Yet the edits along this line have continued. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, but since the notification about discretionary sanctions was made, there's only been two edits. Other opinions may vary certainly. But, I don't see there's a need to topic ban him under the discretionary sanctions when he's barely edited since being notified of them. If the pattern continues, perhaps. For now, I think it's too early. I'm not the final arbiter here. I'm just suggesting trying to engage him in discussion again, given that he now knows about the discretionary sanctions. It's worth a shot. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, however I'd argue that the discretionary sanctions had been mentioned in the AfD in April (in which he participated), the articles are tagged as in scope and there have been attempts to communicate with the editor in March, April and September about the purpose of Wikipedia, however the edit pattern appears to indicate either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is about User:Kintetsubuffalo's behavior using user warnings and his refusal to discuss it.

User:TheWowaDepp's very first contribution to Wikipedia was an apparently unconstructive edit to Kyrgyzstan[27]. It wasn't blatant, but it was worthy of a vandalism warning, so I left a level 1 warning on TheWowaDepp's talk page[28].

Twenty minutes later, a level 4 vandalism user warning appears on TheWowaDepp's talk page[29]. It has no signature. At first, my intention was to add {{unsigned}} to it, but then I see that there have been no further contributions whatsoever from TheWowaDepp since his first. I identified the edit as being from User:Kintetsubuffalo. I reverted it[30] with edit summary "Unsigned, no intervening vandalism." Then I went to Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page to explain. Before I could post, Kintetsubuffalo reverted my reversion with edit summary "don't edit others' comments. vandalism is vandalism"[31] and then made a subsequent edit to post-date and sign the original post.

I left two messages on Kintetsubuffalo's user talk page [32][33] Each was in turn reverted by Kintetsubuffalo with edit summaries "why belabor this? move on"[34] and "what part of "move on" did you not understand?" [35].

In the situation in which I encountered Kintetsubuffalo, he posted a level 4 vandalism warning subsequent to mine and with no intervening contribution, and it was unsigned. If done intentionally, this would contravene the behavioral guidelines Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

There is the larger issue of Kintetsubuffalo's behavior.

He has done exactly the same thing before. A new user makes an unconstructive edit. An editor (or bot) reverts the edit and leaves a lower level user warning on the user's talk page. Then, with no intervening edits at all by the new user, Kintetsubuffalo leaves a level 4 vandalism warning. He doesn't sign it.[36][37][38][39][40] This has the obvious effect of stepping on the editor actually addressing the vandalism, and unjustifiably warning the vandalizing user again when there is no cause to do so. An editor assessing whether a block is justified might think one incident is more than one. That the post isn't signed only compounds the confusion.

Kintetsubuffalo also makes a routine of creating user talk pages with {{vandalism4}}.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] The correct template for giving a user an immediate assumption-of-bad-faith warning that their next edit will result in a block is {{uw-vandalism4im}}, so Kintetsubuffalo is using the wrong template. Also, none of these posts are signed either. Besides that, while there are certainly times when the highest level warning should be given immediately, Kintetsubuffalo hardly ever gives a user warning at a level less than this. It is just not plausible that Kintetsubuffalo is assuming good faith as required by the guidelines.

Regrettably, Kintetsubuffalo refuses to discuss his behavior. Not even that he is forgetting to sign his posts or using the wrong template. The result of Kintetsubuffalo plain refusal to discuss his behavior on his talk page is that we are here instead. --Bsherr (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking that the admins force Kintetsubuffalo to have a conversation with you about all the things you think he has done wrong? Because that's highly unlikely to happen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No. --Bsherr (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What do you want to have happen? --Tarage (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the OP is raising this user's rude and unwelcoming behavior so a wider group can figure out a solution. That seems quite appropriate. Legacypac (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted clarification because there was confusion of intent. This is a common question asked on confusing filings is it not? --Tarage (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac put it quite well. As for corrective edits, I think Kintetsubuffalo's duplicate user warnings should be reverted, and his unsigned posts signed. As for Kintetsubuffalo himself, if the community agrees that there is a problem, I want his behavior to change. As for how that should be compelled, I think that will depend on how Kintetsubuffalo responds, what the community thinks, and what the administrators here agree to be best. I think it's premature to propose anything specific, even though this is not the first time Kintetsubuffalo has been addressed here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Tarage, if you're looking for specific corrective behavior, in my opinion it would be that Kintetsubuffalo should (1) sign his posts, (2) refrain from giving user warnings for edits for which a warning has already been given, (3) refrain from using {{uw-vandalism4}} as a first warning in contravention of its documentation, (4) have discussions on his user talk page, not in edit summaries and reversions, and (5) follow Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Bsherr (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I concur with those recommended steps. I handle a lot of spam, vandalism etc while working with AfD. That is more Level 4 warnings posted in a short time than I've used in years of editing. Frankly if someone really deserves a Level 4 vandalism warning, the correct course of action is reporting them for blocking. This pattern of behavior is troubling. I'd like to see this user explain themselves. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. That collection of LV4 warnings is ridiculous. Look at User talk:74.218.186.106 - this user made a test edit, then reverted it. This one is probably a good faith edit. They got Level 4 warnings. Yes, admittedly most of the IPs are vandalising, but unless it's competely egregious we don't go straight to level 4 warnings. That needs to stop. However, given the "instructions" at the top of User talk:Kintetsubuffalo, I'm unconfident we will get an explanation. However, they've been informed of this thread, so we'll see. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment). Either he (Kintetsubuffalo) did not know ~~~~, or he intentionally skip it. I would expect people to response me back when i send the warning, either they response in personal attack, or feeling rude on level 0 warning and ask for clarification. Matthew hk (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, for those level 4 warning. I had fixed some by signing for him, adding {{shared ip advice}} and send welcome (canned) message, but for the rest, as well as if he continuing doing so, WP:BRI? Matthew hk (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note. Kintetsubuffalo has removed the ANI notice from his talkpage with the edit-summary "yawn", and has edited this morning without addressing the issues here. This is what I expected, given their talkpage. The question is, therefore, where do we go from here? Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Meh ban them from issuing vandalism warnings and have done with it. That list provided above is ridiculous. If they want to play the bully online there is always someone with a bigger stick. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that seems to be the best idea. They seem inclined to ignore this complaint, which means they're likely to just continue with this excessive templating.--WaltCip (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

In late July, there was a similar user (Starkarrow) who was similarly leaving level 4 warnings as their first warnings to vandals or editors who did test edits as can be seen here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988 I am wondering if they could be the same editor?? JC7V-talk 05:38, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban discussion

Based on several comments above, I am starting a discussion to topic ban Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) from using any warning templates. The wording of the ban is as follows:

User:Kintetsubuffalo is indefinitely banned from using any templated warning, including but not limited to the list of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. He may warn other users, but only insofar as his warnings are directly typed by him, and directly address the behavior in question. Furthermore, Kintetsubuffalo is prohibited from leaving ANY warnings of any type for behavior that a user has previously been warned for, and he is enjoined to sign all of his posts to another person's user talk page. Failure to comply with the terms of this ban in any way can result in progressively longer blocks, at the discretion of the blocking admin.

I hope that captures the essence of the problem. --Jayron32 16:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support ban

• --Jayron32 16:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC) as nominator.
• (Non-administrator comment) As someone that was block before long time ago (if my memory was right, also due to sending warning in bad faith). Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I support such a ban. This newbie-biting needs to stop. The user's nonchalance in the face of attempts at discussion is unbecoming. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC).
• I'm all about skipping level 1, but this is ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• I can't come up with any justification for the unsigned level-4 warnings being left for what can be described as test edits. If KB is unwilling to comment here, this is the only option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• per my assessment above. He will not discuss here, so enact the ban and block him if he continues. He's used up his quota of Level 4 warnings. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, unless/until Kintetsubuffalo agrees to use only level 1 or level 2 warnings for first-time offenses (according to the severity of the offense, i.e. not primarily level 2), to avoid re-templating people who have already been templated with no further offense, and to sign the warnings. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm not sure perfect wording has yet been found and Black Kite's 21:11, 26 October 2018 post below is overly formal for my taste (and doesn't cover issuing another warning if one has already been left), but I don't have better text and enough time has spent on this already. I prefer Black Kite's text over the current Jayron32 text of 16:32, 26 October 2018 which suggests KB may rollback an edit and leave no warning/explanation, and "enjoined" isn't strong enough. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Prefer Black Kite's modified version below, but would that result in over-aggressive warnings done manually? I guess we can deal with that if it happens. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Particularly for the sake of editor retention. His actions have no logic or basis, and are tantamount to either harassment or trolling, unless he can explain why he is doing that and or promise that he will stop the nonsense. He's gunning for an indef if he doesn't follow the sanction, which seems to have consensus. Softlavender (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. Although I support the principal of a topic ban, I do not believe that the current proposed wordings are going to cut the mustard. Please see the section 'Alternate or additional proposal' below for my reasoning. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Struck per Softlavender's comments below. See Oppose section. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I have supported the proposal above, since so much time went into it, but we know good and well by now that the user is just going to delete the sanction from his talkpage just like he has every other notification. And then he's going to be blocked. He's certainly not going to abide by a restrictions that has clauses and subclauses and addendums. Any way you look at it, he's going to end up with an indef block. So why don't we just cut to the chase and indef him? If he wants to then make an unblock request and pledge to abide by templating and signing norms, he can. Softlavender (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose ban

• I often give what are called level 4 warnings to brand new vandals. It depends on the vandalism. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Of course, but this case is not about that. The claim is that the user is inappropriately leaving level 4 warnings (see links above). Of course when reverting dubious edits, a fair portion of them will warrant a level 4 warning, but it is important that warnings not be sprayed around per WP:BITE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

still oppose. Roxy, in the middle. wooF 11:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Softlavender's pair of comments below. The second unanswered deletion of a notification of this ANI makes it fairly clear, IMHO, that Kintetsubuffalo has no intention of even reading this ANI thread let alone making any response to it. I believe he is treating the process with contempt and any response needs to reflect that. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• I was actually going to enact such a ban before Jayron started the discussion, so if there isn't any opposition in the next hours, I'll go ahead and do that. I can't see there being any opposition, however; this is a pretty straightforward violation of the the requirement to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Just so everyone is on the same page, everyone realizes that what this really means is he's going to revert and not warn at all, right? Everyone OK with that? I'm not necessarily opposed to that outcome, but just making sure that there isn't another "Kintetsubuffalo isn't warning for vandalism/test edits" thread in a few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's an improvement. If they were to comment here and ask that level-1 warnings through Twinkle not be prohibited in the sanction, I'd be fine with that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Floq is right. Since this editor is not likely to comply, or at least is likely to find any loophole, I suggest "User:Kintetsubuffalo is indefinitely banned from using any templated warning, including but not limited to the list of warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. However, If he reverts vandalistic or disruptive editors, he must warn that editor with a warning directly typed by him, which directly addresses the behavior in question. Furthermore, Kintetsubuffalo must sign all of his posts to another person's user talk page. Failure to comply with the terms of this ban in any way can result in progressively longer blocks, at the discretion of the blocking admin." I think that covers it. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Much better than the original proposal. Make it so. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Or how about we just tban him from reverting beyond 1 revert? --Tarage (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• While Tarage's suggestion could be an additional restriction that sounds good and should be considered whenever required, Black Kite your re-iterated proposed close summary sounds expansive enough to capture most relevant issues at hand. Lourdes 05:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I’ve notified User:Kintetsubuffalo on his User talk page, it looks like he hasn’t done anything about this discussion yet. PorkchopGMX 06:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He was already notified, and removed it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

my notice was removed with the edit summary of “vandalism is vandalism”. Something probably should be done here. PorkchopGMX 07:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:OWNTALK, blanking means "read". Plus his additional edit summary "vandalism is vandalism". It sounds he read it (as least his own talk). While he agree or disagree or not, i assume it just depends on when we decide the topic ban to start, may be when do we close this thread? Matthew hk (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this is a distinct sign of someone who needs an indef block. I don't know why we are pussyfooting around it. Softlavender (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternate or additional proposal

I view of this last blanking and comment there seems to be a complete unwillingness (or even refusal) to WP:COMMUNICATE in this matter. May I propose a course of action to force some action. While the above discussion about a topic ban is entirely laudable, as a first step, Kintetsubuffalo be immediately indefinitely blocked with a caveat that the block will be lifted as soon as he posts an acceptable response to this complaint. This seems to have focused attention in the past. Who knows: but if the response fully accepts the unacceptable behaviour, a topic ban may (and I emphasise may) be rendered unnecessary (I somehow doubt it but good faith is good faith). Since he will only be able to post the response to his talk page, someone will need to copy it here, but there seems to be enough eyes on this that this will happen. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking a lot about this proposed remedy. There are so many benefits to the UW templates—uniform and thoughtful message, their easy identifiability when determining the next level message to use or whether a block is appropriate—that I wonder whether this is a remedy we all suffer as opposed to a correction. (It's not so dissimilar from hypothetically sanctioning an editor not to use the references templates.) This isn't so much a topic as a feature of Wikipedia. Kintetsubuffalo needs to use it correctly. The bottom line is I can't imagine we are going to be happier with the result of Kintetsubuffalo crafting his own user talk warnings. That being said, the alternatives are are essentially either an admonishment that if the behavior continues he will be blocked, or a block now. Before weighing those options, I think TheVicarsCat's proposal of an indefinite block until Kintetsubuffalo participates is a very good idea. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading your response and re-reading the proposed topic bans leaves me believing that we are not adequately addressing the issue. Both ban wordings merely prevent Kintetsubuffalo from using a templated warning (of any level), but require him to craft his own warning. There is no prohibition on crafting a differently worded warning that is essentially still a level 4 warning (or worse). Thus the problem will remain. His response to this complaint is essential if only to determine which teeth any topic ban requires and what the parameters are for a violation to occur. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• He needs some sort of sanction. I don't care if it's an indef block. He is driving away potential good users, and he never answers any usertalkposts -- he simply deletes them. Wikipedia requires collaboration and communication, and following polices and guidelines. The standard way we deal with people who neither communicate nor follow PAGs is to indef block until they communicate and convince others that they will continue to do so, and will comply with policies and guidelines and templating norms. Softlavender (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban seems sufficient at this point, as it would prevent the reported problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: In what form should this topic ban be applied, because the versions already supplied will not work for the reasons given above? TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban from using level 4 templated warnings, and then address any further problematic behaviour if it should occur. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• ... and I told you guys he would simply delete the sanction. May I have my winnings now? Indef block coming in 1, 2, 3 .... Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Come on, Soft. You know he can delete the ban message if he likes. The interesting part is whether or not he abides by it. Bishonen | talk 00:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC).

• Well, you know where my money is. I'm expecting a big payday. Softlavender (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Here ya' go, Softy!

-EEng

Fireflyfanboy

Uncivility and namecalling at Talk:Anthony Bourdain after POV pushing. Edit appears to have a pattern of poor behavior here. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to see a week long block, even though it's unrelated to the previous edit warring block, the user clearly has issues with civility as seen by the numerous warning on their talk page. --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For someone calling a jerk for them ignoring something they requested of me...? I admittedly lost my cool in a situation where a user wasn't being constructive. Must that warrant a block?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I’m involved. The pattern isn’t good and the editor clearly has no patience. Generally, I prefer to play out more rope in such situations. If there is a block, make it brief or consider a TBan instead, or just trout him with a warning. Albeit, I foresee a bad ending. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You made a request for another reason to include the quote, which I followed through on. I politely asked for a response, you ignored it and changed the subject to what would happen if I added the quote without consensus. Can't you understand why I lost my cool? You insulted me by not even considering the point I was making!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t make the complaint and I asked for leniency. We edit based upon WP:CONSENSUS. You were not making headway toward that goal, which I merely pointed out. If you lose your “cool” so easily, perhaps you should edit less controversial articles. I suggest you simply say you will be more polite in future and understand the concept of consensus. Hell, do that, and with the OP’s permission, I’ll close this filing myself. O3000 (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

All I wanted was for my point, which, again, YOU requested, to be considered as part of discussion. I was trying to add to the discussion, and just wanted my point to be properly considered by all parties, including and especially you. I do understand the concept of consensus, which is why I wanted my point given its proper credence, and will try to be more conscientious in the future.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You guys do whatever you think is right, I just wanted to report it. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, from reading the thread on the article talk page, I'm not sure you understand that people can carefully consider your arguments and still disagree. At least if you are arguing that your arguments weren't given proper credence. zchrykng (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Fireflyfanboy, when you call another editor a "jerk!!!", an "obstructionist", and a "WikiZealot", all in one single comment, you are not editing collaboratively and you are motivating scrutiny of your editing patterns. Excessive use of exclamation marks is an obvious problem, but bullying other editors is much worse. Work toward genuine consensus instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, as the editor he called a jerk, obstructionist, and WikiZealot, I was willing to NAC no action close this myself if I saw a better understanding of consensus and civility. I suggest a brief, but escalated block. O3000 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Fireflyfanboy: This is not just because you got frustrated and lost your cool. Your conduct on that talk page, and article, through and through, is disruptive, tendentious, POINTY, combative uncivil, and unreasonable. Frankly, you come across as impossible to reason with. This started because you re-added Trump's reaction, which was reverted because "[Trump] has no connection with [Bourdain].[59] You then made the false claim that "Protocol states that [sitting presidents' reactions are] included".[60] On the talk page, you relied on a WP:OTHERCRAP argument, and while it was pointed out to you that that rationale was not valid, the opposition extended beyond that. Calton immediately responded, pointing out that Obama's relation to the subject was different from that of Trump's, and that your desire to equivocate both pieces of content in an "all or nothing" approach "makes no sense", and called that approach "mindless whataboutism". Rather than showing any sort of indication that you were making any effort to listen to and understand the points that were being made, you simply made the bizarre, detached statement "thanks for citing something unrelated and using an ad hominum attack against me instead of arriving at a consensus". It was then pointed out that you could make a proposal via an RfC, but rather than doing so, you proceeded to edit war over the removal of Obama based on your personal preference "all or nothing" approach, in spite of specific objections to that approach that were provided multiple times both in edit summaries and on the talk page. You were told by an (apparently) uninvolved party that you were being disruptive, and you were told to present a compelling, logical argument for including Trump for editors to decide whether to agree or disagree with. You then claimed that you already did, and your points were simply being ignored (while in reality, you were the one refusing to acknowledge a differing opinion). You apologized for making personal attacks, and then proceeded immediately to make another one ("he started it"). O3000 made a fairly neutral comment, but laid out plenty of procedural reasons he objected to your edits, and said that he didn't even have an opinion, and that he wanted to see a more convincing argument than the 'other articles' approach which you had been relying heavily on, to which your "new argument" essentially boiled down to "it's just significant". Nothing to back it up, just your opinion, which was already implied all along. No new information or compelling rationale. You just think it's significant. And, when this user, who didn't even have a strong opinion, and literally just wanted to see a good argument, was unconvinced by this incredibly shallow counterargument, and referred you back to the reasons you were already opposed, you became belligerent and personally attacked them again, claiming that they're a "zealot". A user who was neutral on the content dispute. I note that your talk page declares a general aversion to the "zealots" on this site, which is interesting. If that user is an example of what your userpage refers to, then that tells me that you have a tendency to invalidate your opponents in minor, good faith content disputes, even in situations where they're being perfectly reasonable, and when called out on it, you will blame your opponents by falsely accusing them of disruptive conduct. I think you're easily in the territory of the proposed one-week block, but based on the overall conduct I'm seeing here, I'm unconvinced that you will respond reasonably to it. So, I'm blocking indefinitely. This is not meant to be a draconian, harsh, or long block. It can be as short as you want it to be. However, you're going to have to actually address the problems with your behavior, show us that you understand what the problems are, and what you need to do to resolve them. When you submit a suitable unblock request, you can be unblocked without delay, but this is a collaborative project, and you're not displaying the competence required to collaborate and go about resolving disputes in good faith.  Swarm  talk  08:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User forcing their edits through

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is forcing edits through on the Hot Wheels World Race article, despite being told that their additions are excessive; Their additions are a plot section at 3,500 words, when MOS:PLOT mentions that for feature films, 400-700 is enough, and this is a direct-to-video title. Eik Corell (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To start, I issued a final warning... But the history of this and related articles suggest that's some socking and block evasion going on. -- ferret (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged-out editing, yes--but nothing major or (right now) blockable. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Logged out editing is not blockable? --Tarage (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• User officially warned on usertalk against WP:DE and editing logged out. If there is suspected socking via named accounts, please file a report at WP:SPI. Softlavender (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Hot Wheels: World Race

Following on from the discussion started yesterday by Eik Corell, Brigskick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding a ridiculously long-winded plot summary to Hot Wheels: World Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – over three and a half thousand words long, a major violation of MOS:PLOT, which recommends a plot summary of 400-700 words. I suspect the user may be a sock puppet of jmyrtle13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who yesterday made similar edits. Citizen Canine (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Citizen Canine, I moved this thread under the similar one, which I have unclosed for now. The appropriate place to file a sockpuppet investigation is WP:SPI, although it's so obvious it should probably be blocked as a DUCK. Ferret, Drmies, Bueller? Softlavender (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, he's breached 3RR now. Can someone block and save us the trouble of an ANEW report? Softlavender (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor has issues with NOTHERE and CIVIL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

65.60.240.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continually adds unnecessary TBA lines to pageant articles prior to the crowning of the next winner which have been consistently deleted by myself and other editor. They appear not to be on Wikipedia for any other useful purpose. They have taken objection and left a number of highly uncivil comments on my talk page eg “You cheese eating surrender monkey! What have I been telling you about deleting things on pageant titleholder lists? You did not listen you racist little baby. STAY OFF PAGEANT TITLEHOLDER LISTS YOU AINY FAIRY!” [61] and other comments along the same lines [62] After an original patch of issues by this IP and a second IP they then created a new username Pageantgurl (talk · contribs) and continued the problem editing and personal attacks/threats under that username (admitting they were the same editor) [63] and have now returned to editing with the original IP. The IP was blocked for 72 hours early in this pattern of editing but that has not deterred them. ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I watch many pageant related pages as I occasionally seek to delete them as non-notable vanicrud. Pageant chasers can be hard to deal with, very dedicated to their hobby. Best you can do is rollback their changes if they keep switching IPs. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is what I am doing, however the civility issues need to be dealt with, as they are leading to the sort of inappropriate comments on my talk page as above ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  06:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

we learned recently here that editors can say a heck of a lot worse and not be sanctioned. Undo their posts and they will tire of it. Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support hardblock indef of named account as clearly NOTHERE (account is being used only for disruptive editing and threats). And a block of the IP for as long as possible for the same reason and for persistent PAs and socking. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef on account, longterm block on the IP - per WP:NOTHERE, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS and WP:SOCK.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I third that motion...Indefinite block. I would add no talk page access as well.--RAF910 (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's usually only necessary when they're abusing their talk page or if it's an ArbCom block. I'd say it's best to let the blocking administrator decide on that one.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Please note they have not engaged with the discussion here but are continuing their disruptive editing under both the IP and the Pageantgurl username. [64] [65] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  12:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

If you support one or both of the proposals above, then place a bolded !vote here as others have so that it can be counted. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I would vote for an indefinite block as well ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CJinoz, it's best if you use the format that others have, with flush-left bullet and full bolding and the word "Support" at the beginning. That is, if you want this issue to be taken care of as swiftly as possible. Admins don't always pay attention to threads on this very busy board, but when there is a clear consensus of clearly bolded !votes it's easier for them to notice the thread and know what the consensus is. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and apologies, I have added this in below, hope that's formatted better this time ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block until they agree to stop this pattern of editing and agree not to insult other editors. That fairy comment is especially disturbing.(always hated being called that in school back in the day) Isaidnoway (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block as per previous comments. Editor has shown no indication that they will stop without being made to stop ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:EspinosaLuisJr1791

I have been trying to communicate with this editor since November 2017, and have sent about 15 messages during this time. Other editors have sent them multiple messages on the same topic - repeatedly creating unreferenced articles. They have edited their user talk page during this time and at other times, but only to blank their page. They have been editing for two years.

Many of their creations have ended up looking like this: 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season, which has been moved to draftspace three times, but this editor just keeps moving it back to mainspace without addressing the issues. They have been offered help, links to Help:Referencing for beginners, support at the WP:TEAHOUSE, policies on referencing and communication, but they simply refuse to respond and continue to create unreferenced articles. After a year of this editor ignoring m y messages and seeing them ignore so many others, I have run out of other options and feel action needs to be taken.

This was brought to WP:ANI by Barkeep49 here [66] but the discussion doesn't seem to have got underway really and was closed without any decision being made. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree this is a problem editor. Has not responded to a single talkpage notice; instead routinely blanks the page: [67]. Has not posted on a single talkpage, period. What do you suggest? Attention-getting block? Force going through AfC? Ban on new-page creation? Etc.? Pinging Vermont, who posted on the last ANI thread. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I’d support a requirement to go through AfC, and a block if they ignore that or continue to refuse to communicate. Vermont (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a decent solution, unless someone has a better one. I support that. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd support that - hopefully it will be enough to get them to engage. If not, a swift indefinite block would be best. Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I think their problem is new article creation as there's really only an obligation to communicate when someone raises an issue. This editor appears to be productive outside of that. I would suggest a ban on new article creation given their disruptive recreation of articles and because AfC would mean wasting time of other editors trying to decide what to do with poorly created articles on notable topics. I would support an Afc requirement as a second choice though. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, a ban on new article creation is a stronger option, but one that's possibly necessary if the new creations have been irredeemable and time-wasting as he creates them. I support that as well as the most efficient solution. Softlavender (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I actually think now a full ban on article creation is necessary - they've continued to create unreferenced, uncategorised articles since this discussion was opened (e.g. 2018–19 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball season) and haven't commented here. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, many of the newly created articles may fail WP:NSEASONS as well. SportingFlyer talk 06:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Humayun Akhtar Khan

We've had ongoing problems for two weeks now with a SPA Jawswade (talk · contribs) who continually adds original research and promotional material to Humayun Akhtar Khan. When I tried to remove the OR, the user engaged in edit warring which led me to left numerous warnings on their talk page User_talk:Jawswade#October_2018. I tried to communicate with this editor via article's talk page Talk:Humayun Akhtar Khan but xe does not care to respond. --Saqib (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Might need a topic ban if he can't abide by Wikipedia policies. Pinging Diannaa and DMacks, who have also left him talkpage messages. Softlavender (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yup, refuses to abide by WP:V (mostly uncited or not-supported-by-cite) despite saying that the content is cited and supported. I don't know about the reliability of the claimed sources (this topic is not my expertise). And refuses to discuss it? That's not how we build a collaborative encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

2401:7400:4001:2BEE:0:0:0:0/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2401:7400:4001:2BEE:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone will need to quickly block this range, as he has started making bad edits right away as soon as the last block by Favonian expired, and the last block not created by a bot was at 08:56, October 27, 2018. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lad Blackpool being uncivil and nothere

• Lad Blackpool (talk · contribs)

They've accused me of vandalism twice. Both times, they misread the edit history because I wasn't the one who removed the content they restored (that's the charitable explanation). [68][69]

And now they're calling me a vandal on their talk page, and calling me a "TRA" which means "trans rights activist" and is a term TERFs use to describe anybody who disagrees with them. [70]

I already asked them to be WP:CIVIL after the first baseless accusation, and now they've shown that their purpose here is not to edit Wikipedia collaboratively, but to be antagonistic towards people they consider their ideological enemy. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears your last edit to the article was on October 20, and Lad Blackpool is a new user who has jumped right on in editing with an agenda. It's shameful that editors can't be more tolerant and civil here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• I've added the user's links to the top of the thread here. The editing seems to have stopped; if it continues, it's probably best to just revert and then warn about edit-warring and report to ANEW. Some of their edits could actually have partial merit, and discussion should occur on the talkpage of the article. If the abuse continues, then report back here. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User 14.200.91.233

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has vandalised Wikipedia. They have also threatened legal action against Wikipedia (See 'bin chicken low importance ' in this; [[71]]. I am also not sure if this may have contained a link to copyrighted material. On their talk page (here;https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:14.200.91.233) they have been insulting and made personal attacks against me. For example, he told me that I had poor comprehension skills and that 'people such as yourself just turned it (Wikipedia in general) into a nasty edit warring trash-fire'. They then asked ME to appologise. On this page, Nick-D asked him to stop disruptive editing and was accused of only allowing 'cabal friends' to edit Wikipedia. On this page, under September 2017, he was given a final warning for personal attacks, against Yassmin Abdel-Magied; [[72]]. He also told Jytdog on his talk page that they 'helped make more people cripple and destroyed their quality of life! May you get what you give'. After Jytdog told him that a page he had edited had been put under discretionary sanctions and making it clear that this was not because of his bad actions.

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

He said that a bird Twitter account might sue because the bird species was ranked on Wikipedia as being of "low importance", he didn't threaten to take legal action himself. I don't know about the other issues but that was clearly a joke since animals can't sue anyone. 2601:1C0:5A01:4302:D556:B44C:37A:BF97 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

!? They were given a warning on their page. However, if you want more examples, on their talk page, I was called by them a 'nuisance' told I am doing 'childish antics', told I was 'aggressive ',that I had 'rudely threatened blocks ', but I think that this was the first time 'block' had appeared on the page, saying I am a 'hypocrite', I 'knew nothing about copyright ', told me that I had no sense of humour and I did not help Wikipedia's environment. I was also accused of libel, defamation and vandalism by trying to communicate my view with them. I was told at least once to 'go away' after posting a non-insulting comment. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Nowhere, does it actually say that the twitter account was going to sue it. In some ways, it would be like saying 'but they obviously couldn't do it' or 'how do you know that they were threatening to do it' if someone said 'I bet somebody is going to punch you'? Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Qwerty number1: The 14.200. IP address has not done any editing relating to Yassmin Abdel-Magied nor crossed paths with Jytdog in over a year. The person who was editing those pages might not even be the same person. Any actions carried out by the IP in those areas are beyond stale and not relevant.

This more relevant edit of the IP's which you attempted to link to shows making a joke suggesting that a bird would sue. Jokes to carry an otherwise serious point are not vandalism. Assume good faith, even from IP editors.

I'm not saying the IP is right (or wrong) with regards to the content dispute but I am going to say that you're making mountains out of molehills and need to back away until you can handle this calmly. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acroterion taking things out of context on EgyptAir Flight 990

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

EgyptAir Flight 990

(cur | prev) 22:49, 27 October 2018‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,309 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.56.169.162 (talk): Rv - no substantive change made to content. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:46, 27 October 2018‎ 71.56.169.162 (talk)‎ . . (45,307 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Not pointless reordering, do not do disruptive edits. The context is being edited to match that of the NTSB report which states actions for determination. There is no reason to not maintain the same context as the investigative report unless you have personal reasons.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:32, 27 October 2018‎ Acroterion (talk | contribs)‎ . . (45,309 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.56.169.162 (talk): Rv pointless reordering. (TW)) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 22:30, 27 October 2018‎ 71.56.169.162 (talk)‎ . . (45,307 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Changed the context to match the conclusion of the report. Context matters, DO NOT make edits to take things out of context for personal reasons.) (undo)

Unable to leave message on users talk page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.169.162 (talk • contribs) 2018-10-27T23:07:47 (UTC)

Content dispute with no discussion on the article talk page. Please sign your posts with four tildes (like ~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

And what on earth is the difference between these two sentences, anyway? [73]. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The only difference I can start to imagine is whether one wants to emphasize that no conclusion was reached or try to blame the pilot. But I'd have to have someone admit that's exactly why they're switching it around, and I'd have to say that the difference is so weak that that reason would frankly be a pretty lame reason for an edit war. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Not notified of this - I warned the IP for edit summaries like "unless you have personal reasons." They're up to three reverts for no reason I can discern, and I'm not getting the "out of context" business. I have no strong opinion on the wording, but I'm concerned about the IP's tendency to claim interested motivations in edit summaries while claiming that they're making vital changes. I've unprotected my talkpage - I didn't realize it was still semi-protected. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ugly edit war at Interstate 95 in Delaware

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There’s an ugly edit war unfolding at Interstate 95 in Delaware. I am reporting User:Cards84664 for engaging in the edit war, but I am also going to report myself as I acknowledge that I have broke 3RR too. We need an outside mediator - perhaps block both of us to make it fair. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: It now appears that the other user in question may be editing while logged out to continue the edit war. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) User has shown incompetence with citations, I was in the process of filing a notice at WP:AN3 when this request was made. User reviews within Google Maps are not regarded as reliable sources. The IP makes a claim that essentially says a passage is correct with "everyone says so" logic. The IP also reasons that user competence is good enough of a source, as shown here. IP was also reverted prior by another experienced editor, as shown here. I am requesting a block for this IP, due to repeated requests to stop vandalizing on their talk page, which the IP repeatedly blanks after recieving warnings. This kind of editing does not belong on Wikipedia. Cards84664 (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the warnings on my talk were for something totally different months ago. Also I think the best course of action here is to block both of us for 3RR violations, and possibly Cards84664 for editing while logged out. A single Google Review is not reliable, but a dozen of them that all say the same thing clearly states that the information is true. 24.34.85.169 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Pinging second opinion, @Dough4872:. Cards84664 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The information really does not belong, though I think that my neutrality could legitimately be called into question if I acted with the admin tools on this one. I see User:Bbb23 has CU-blocked the IP already, so that may be the best solution. --Rschen7754 23:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The information the IP keeps adding to the Interstate 95 in Delaware article is unsourced, even though they claim it came from Google Maps reviews, and is not appropriate for the encyclopedia given the lack of reliable sourcing. Dough4872 23:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• A request for semi-protection has been filed at RFPP by FreeKnowledgeCreator. Any admin seeing this can go ahead and do that if it hasn't been handled yet. Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism in pursuit of an edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See here. This editor is defacing my user page ([74] & [75]) in response to being reverted at Murder of Seth Rich. It's also worth noting what they are edit warring over. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Editor was warned here, here and here. (all have since been blanked.) I also issued a warning over the vandalism, but then I thought better of trying to reason with someone who would do this and came here instead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User "ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants" did not read the source, as evidenced in the edit log.

He referenced the wrong source for the section in question, as evidenced in the edit log.

When I called him out on not doing his due dalliance, he engaged with higher authority, accusing me of an edit war he clearly started (see edit log).

He engages in arguments in bad faith using logical fallacies purposefully, to defend not correcting the error of editorializing/original research, which already has a lengthy discussion. Evidenced in talk page of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuroelectronic (talk • contribs)

@Neuroelectronic: None of that is an excuse for edit warring or an exception from the one-revert restriction. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

So go ahead and revert it again then, logical. I don't care but clearly if you're going to put up with editors like this and defend their actions they clearly instigated then I'm not welcome here. @Neuroelectronic:

@Neuroelectronic: You made a bold edit, they reverted. Other than the exchange of reverts that followed, I do not see anything untoward in the other user's conduct. This thread is about your conduct: specifically, your follow-on revert and your defacing of another user's user page. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I see what's going on here. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.207.204 (talk • contribs)

• And then this message. Is this enough intent to edit war to go ahead and block the account preventively? —C.Fred (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It certainly is. IP hard-blocked and account blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The intent to start an edit war is clearly on ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. I don't know who you think you're fooling.

Also calling an accurate edit vandalism is just transparent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.207.204 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 05:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also on my talk page. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 05:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I requested page protection and have been reporting the IP's to AIV.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Tornheim canvassing RFC with misrepresentation of its question

[76][77][78][79]

Questioned about it here and dismissed question here. Also made bizarre attempt to defend these actions by claiming that since women get harassed on Wikipedia, WP:FEMINISM and WP:WOMEN must be particularly interested in the use of the word "fuck".[80][81] I don't know what to say beyond that I can't believe he would think this behaviour appropriate. Could someone please tell him to knock it off?

Also pinging User:Guy Macon who also questioned this on Jimbo's talk page.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) His post on Jimbo's talk page was how I found the RFC (because I have it watchlisted), but yes, it's indeed canvassing.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Since I commented in the RFC, I figured I'd make that disclosure (since finding the RFC was the result of David's actions), but I didn't think too much of the post on Jimbo's talk page at the time (since I've often seen people ask "Jimbo, what do you think about this?"), but these diffs are troubling. Wouldn't be a bad idea for someone to investigate how some of the participants found the RFC, since that'll definitely influence the discussion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The title of this thread should have been Is "(Delete unwelcome comments and accusations)" a civil way to address good faith questions asked of you at your talk page? I hadn't noticed this until now, but this is seriously not cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I saw it on one of the projects most respected admin's Talk page. Something should be done, as such a long term editor has no excuse for not knowing better. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 07:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Urge to tell David to fuck off... rising... --Tarage (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Cannot edit the article Bodacious which is protected from IP and anon users, but I am registered user

Hi, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus over at the Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests told me this was the correct place to post my request. Details at this URL! [82]

Please see this conversation with the admin I just had who referred me to post at "ANI" for Bodacious (bull). When I came to the noticeboard area, I wasn't really sure which noticeboard to post it at. [83] The issue is explained clearly at the admin's talk page. But the theme is that I cannot edit an article that was protected to keep IP users from editing it temporarily. I have a login and should be able to edit it. Thank you! Going to bed but hope it be resolved w/o me. dawnleelynn^(talk) 06:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It is odd, the article is semi-protected and you are an extended confirmed user, so you should be able to edit it. I suggest posting at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) instead of here. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

75.91.226.53

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made the mistake of getting into a small edit war on the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting article, but based on some of this IP's edits, it's absolutely uncivil. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears that the IP has been temporarily blocked. Someone can close this now. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.