Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

User:E-960

Problematic POV pushing. Page blanking against WP:Consensus at Blue Army (Poland). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Article has been fully protected. This'll give the users involved an opportunity to discuss everything fully on the article's talk page and work things out. I see back-and-fourth reverting that goes back at least a few days, so this appears to be the right and fair way to stop the disruption at this time. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - there is a longer term pattern of abuse here. E-960 has been attempting, against consensus, to excise coverage (in the lede and body) of anti-Semitic attacks by the Blue Army (which reliable academic sources treat at depth, often as the primary subject of their coverage of the Blue Army (or Haller's Army)) for years - e.g. 17:51, 24 November 2015 (shifting blame to Ukrainians along the way), 06:31, 6 March 2017, 15:07, 25 May 2017 (an edit summary full of OR - referencing a PRIMARY contemporary source - which was composed in 1919 - 2 years prior to the peace of Riga in 1921), 15:30, 26 May 2017, 21:37, 20 October 2017, 08:26, 22 September 2018, .... 06:09, 8 October 2018, 17:17, 9 October 2018. All this - against talk page consensus and RfCs - e.g. Talk:Blue Army (Poland)/Archive 6#RFC: use of a reference source that was taken down by the encyclopedia from May 2017 which discussed the language used in the lede. They have engaged of canvassing of editors involved in WP:EEML - 13:25, 8 October 2018, 13:21, 8 October 2018 (this after - 07:56, 8 October 2018 a highly non-neutral stmt to NPOV/n apparently attracted the wrong sort of editorial attention). An editor that thinks that 200-300 casualties in 3 years of fighting and 200,000 soldiers, that's insignificant, and only confirms my concerns that some editors just want to stack this article with biased one sided statements (again - wrongly referring to Morgenthau's mid-1919 number (the Morgenthau commission did not have a crystal ball) which estimated 200-300 killed through 1919 (casualties - including wounded and abused - would be much larger of course). They have also misrepresented sources - 06:01, 9 October 2018 (not only is Lvov in the Morgenthau report, using David Engel (1987) to rebut a 2005 book is a tad odd - and in this case completely unsupported by Engel (who actually, in his footnote addressing Morgenthau , writesthe opposite). An editor acting against consensus (on the same issue) for years, and who considers widespread antisemitic attack by an organization to be "insignificant" (despite widespread coverage - to the point that some sources primarily cover the Blue Army in the context of antisemitism) - should not be editing the topic area. Icewhiz (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Right, where you have no arguments and are trying to deflect from your own disruptive behavior then... you bring up "EEML", a ArbCom case from freakin' ten years ago that has nothing to do with this article. You know that's just more evidence that you're not editing in good faith, right? Volunteer Marek 14:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to make a critical statement, thought not in an effort to point fingers at anyone and not in bad faith, however a frank dialogue needs to take place. There is a persistent bias on topics related to Polish history, how can any one that is truly for Wikipedia neutraliry say that an article is balanced when it contains 3,100 words 900 (30%) are devoted to just one issue and this also happens to be a contriversial topic. When a few days ago I opened a disscussion on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard to see if the disputed text can be condenced, cynically user Icewhiz responded by adding two more paragraphs to disputed section (also pls see user Icewhiz history, as he has been accused of POV pushing on topics related to Polish-Jewish history in the past). Also, the disputed text is almost all exclusivley the work of one editor user Faustian, who over the years blocked any attempt to make the section more neutral or balanced. Now, Wikipedia guidlines clearly state that undue weight can include depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of text and article structue. So, how can anyone argue that one issue taking up 30% of the article is ok. In no other Wikipedia article would that be allowed. Instead you have artificial "consensus" where the same few editors jump in to support each other, and establish "consensus which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines. I as that sevral admins to actually look at the Blue Army article and say that the text meets Wikipedias neutrality standards, when the article focuses on just one ethnic group which sustained the least casulties in the war as a result of the army's actions (around 500), while other ethnic groups count their casulties in the THOUSANDS and there is just one passing statement devoted to them. --E-960 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. It would seem neutral, reliable, secondary academic sources treat the Blue Army's antisemitic atrocities against civilians (abuse, cutting of beards, pillaging and robbing, maiming, and killing) at great length in comparison to their performance on the field of battle. We follow sources - not editorial opinion that such atrocities are "insignificant"(diff - 10:33, 8 October 2018). Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making that statement user Icewhiz because it unmasks your POV pushing, since there are pleanty of sources which say the Blue Army turned the tide of the war and that is the center of their material. However, the sources you champion just focus the the abuse, besides this is not the first article you are trying to impose your POV to the objectin of other editors, no sure what the point of that link was since we are talking about UNDUEWEIGHT.--E-960 (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it's pretty clear that if anyone is trying to use Wikipedia to "RIGHTGREATWRONGS", it's not E-960 but you. E-960 is making a straight forward policy based argument about DUE WEIGHT. You can disagree with that (the real question is whether this article should spend 1/3 of its space on this issue even though the subject is notable for other reasons, or whether that info belongs in a different article), but there's no need to attack them or insult them or falsely misrepresent their actions, like you're doing by accusing them of RGW (I don't see ANYTHING in their comment which would suggest that). On the other hand, pretty much everyone familiar with your editing history has a pretty good sense of your WP:ADVOCACY and pattern of POV pushing in this and other topic areas. Volunteer Marek 16:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that if E-960 really was concerned about undue weight, he would have taken all that time he spent trying to get this information about atrocities against Jews removed, and instead applied it towards building up other aspects of the history of the Blue Army. Instead he has, for years, just tried to get this information removed. So his actual motive is to remove information he doesn't like, and not make the article weighted as he sees fit. The percentage of the article devoted to these atrocities would have been much smaller had E-960 spent a couple hours in the library doing research and adding other information to the article, rather than spending hours trying to remove information. So let's not pretend that he cares about undue weight. He just wants to remove referenced information that he doesn't like and engages in edit warring and blanking (see here: [1]) while doing so.Faustian (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Faustian, what you are doing is Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, literally no changes have been made to the disputed section in YEARS, because you sit on top of that article and revert all attempts to change the text or even seek a compromise solution (that's not even an exaggeration, the text has been frozen for YEARS due to your stonewalling). --E-960 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

By "no changed" in the disputed section you mean, your repeated attempts to remove information without consensus. If you are concerned about undue weight, why not build other sections rather than remove reliably sourced info from this one? I doubt you really care about undue weight. You just want information that you don't like to be removed.Faustian (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article does indeed have severe undue weight issues. Interestingly I have also checked the sources used and for example Prusin-he doesn't say anything about rapes and burning books by Blue Army soldiers and explanations of the situation have been cut out by the editors adding the information about killings.I compared this article with the article about West Ukrainian People's Republic that exised in the same time and area which engaged in mass opression of Polish population, up to setting up internment camps for Polish population. It is quite interesting to compare the two articles.While here we have almost half of the page devoted to these events, the mass persecution of Poles in WUPR is passed over and blamed on "Polish sabotage". I can't help but notice the radically different treatement the two articles about similiar events in the same time and area and conflict receive.So to summarize-I do believe there is undue weight here and comparing this to other articles on the conflict with similar events there seems to be bias involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

And what matters is not what our articles say, but what RS say. So if there is an imbalance maybe this is due to an imbalance in reliable sources saying something. Again if there is information left out of an article that is relevant and can be sourced add it, do not remove sources material from another article in the name of balance.Slatersteven (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• We are back to the theme of trouble in articles on the subject of Polish-Jewish relations. As far as I’m aware there are three editors banned from the area at the moment, and E-960 was editing with them, on the same articles. Whether or not one agrees with this editor on article content, what we're required to do here at ANI is consider conduct. This particular case comes within a context, which I'll start to show some of here.
• For the record, at WP:AE the administrator NeilN has already advised E-960 “to be more careful when reverting” in the conclusion to a WP:AE revert-warring case: [2]
• This came after another WP:AE revert-war case where administrator NeilN asked E-960 to voluntarily abstain from the page in question for 72 hours, in light of E-960’s assurance that they will be more careful in future: [3]
• MyMoloboaccount has recently asked E-960 to “chill out”. [4] .
• Slatersteven messaged E-960 in May to say their conduct was starting look like WP:TE: [5]
• K.e.coffman messaged E-960 last month to say: Hi, I am leaving a quick note to let you know that I did not find these Talk page comments to be helpful: [6]. Talk pages are for discussion of content, not contributors. I would appreciate it if you did not unnecessarily personalised disputes. This could potentially drive off other editors if they find the atmosphere too unpleasant. Thank you. [7]
• I myself disengaged from editing and discussion with E-960 around 15 months ago, at the Poland article here: [8]
• In December, E-960 by their own account alleged a "Planned POV attack on the Poland article" which goes a long way to explain the perception issue here, which seems to motivate the behavior. User:BytEfLUSh responded by saying "I fail to see how someone saying that they intend to improve the article could be viewed as POV-pushing. Also, regarding 3RR, you might want to check the article history and look at the timestamps of your reverts... " Unable to leave alone an editor who had swam away from the WP:BAIT, E-960 added: "This reminds me of several incidents in the past where an editors/suck-puppet dumped information on unusual topics/minutia (normally not covered in other country articles) such as traffic fatalities in the country." I am the editor who had added road deaths to the Poland article (because no matter how embarrassing to the country, they are notable in reliable sources - including Polish news coverage and political discussion - because they are the highest total in the EU), before leaving it per WP:DISENGAGE. E-960 produced no evidence that I am a "suck-puppet". [9]
• Since then I have suspended work on an article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE), named Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, in response to an edit by E-960 there. To my mind in breach of the spirit of these sanctions, E-960 reverted [10] my addition of sourced content [11] which I had discussed my rationale for on the Talk page first, and part of which François Robere had endorsed with a public thanks, meaning E-960 was pointedly disregarding consensus. As you’ll see from the Talk page, the aim of my addition had been to establish article stability by at least having a definition of controversial terms that in my view was causing editors to argue at cross -purposes; E-960’s edit summary shows their own definition of the term Polish “collaboration” rules out Polish “anti-semitism”, as if E-960’s knows the universal truth.
• At times E-960's Talk page discussion has been misleading. For example, at the same article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies, their "I agree with Chumchum7... Unfortunately, user François Robere wants to..." is not an agreement at all but a case of putting words into someone else's mouth, because I had made a general statement about how we might be able to build consensus and stability, and I had not taken sides against the editor E-960 happened to disagree with: [12] Similarly misleading communication has been witnessed by Paul Siebert: [13]
• The common theme with all these articles is that E-960 has an axe to grind about Poland’s reputation and Polish-Jewish relations in particular, but they do this with the appearance of trying to intimidate, win and control, and often with projections of bad faith and a personally disrespectful tone, which is at odds with the ethos of our community. While I happen to agree that the allegation of Polish antisemitism is sometimes exaggerated and has led to stereotyping and is an aspect of prejudice against Poles, it is equally true that Polish antisemitism is sometimes downplayed, denied, justified or whitewashed. The solution in Wikipedia is to try to find a consensus solution which represents the sources fairly, because it is a fight which will never be won: those who insist on fighting about it will be stopped.
• This has gone on too long. It’s stealing our time and warnings are not being heeded by the user in question; it may even be that our tolerance is feeding their conduct. This ANI needs to be seen in the wider context. Similar sanctions as those applied to User:Icewhiz, etc, may be worth considering. As far as I recall, veteran administrators on issues such as this are Sandstein and User:EdJohnston, who might be available for consultation as well as NeilN .Best luck, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 - I'm sorry but comparable "evidence of misconduct" could be constructed against anyone who edits Wikipedia. I will highlight that you spent over 3 hours (from 5AM until 8AM [14] - [15] [16]) on scanning for and picking anything that may appear to look perhaps actionable, causing otherwise a standard editor look bad.GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, you're one of the three aforementioned editors topic-banned from the same subject area of Polish-Jewish relations in WWII (in your case for misrepresenting sources) where E-960 has been editing. This includes the article subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE) on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, mentioned above. You're very much involved. Please bear in mind the possibility of appealing your ban in December. Your position that the same things here could be said about 'anyone who edits Wikipedia', and your allegation that my use of diffs is 'causing otherwise a standard editor look bad' is understood. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The debate here and the topics are E-960, WW1, and Blue Army Chumchum7 and thank you for recognizing that similar data could be found in most editors edit history not only E-960. Nothing extraordinary there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not recognize that similar data could be found in most editors' edit history. I said I understood your position, which is a different thing. For the record, that position and your subsequent misrepresentation of what I said indicates that you are not learning from your topic ban, which will be dealt with elsewhere. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Chumchum7 Now I understand what you meant by saying " my position is understood" I would also suggest to assume good faith and restrain yourself from issuing threats.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't want to get involved, but well... I agree with what Faustian, Slatersteven and Chumchum said, and regret the latter's decision to stop contributing to said article. I just have two things to add:
1) As you can see, this discussion already pulled in a user previously topic-banned from "history of Poland during WWII" for anti-Semitic comments and edits using a single-purpose account dedicated solely to editing articles about the World War II history of Poland with a view to... making them more sympathetic to right-wing Poles - [a form of] tendentious editing [that] is, in and of itself, incompatible with the fundamental conduct aspect of WP:NPOV [17] (the other admins had more harsh words on the matter, but that's the gist of it). The ban, I'm afraid, was ill-defined: The user should've been banned not from "history of Poland during WWII" but from "history of the Jews in Poland", which would've included both world wars. A ban that allows a user to join in on exactly the same kind of discussion because the events took place 25 years earlier is flawed.
2) E-960 tends to assume others have hidden agendas, and too often for my tastes "casts aspersions" (see admin's comment here), and blocks benign changes because they fear they're intended to malign the Polish nation. Some recent examples:

1. [18] A simple CE blocked because it looked like material was removed.
2. [19] A simple CE - accusation of "massive change" and trying to "sanitize" text.
3. [20] A list of reversals with accusations of "POV pushing" and the like. Notice that despite the length of the discussion, little is actually discussed - most of the changes are just blocked without further explanation. They're later joined by two other editors, but those two don't offer explanations (in fact, one of their comments is so out of place it refers to something that wasn't even discussed). Despite further "stonewalling", 3/7 changes were eventually accepted when other editors became involved, and I suspect others will pass in the future.

Bottom line: When simple CEs are blocked because someone, somehow feels they're driven by ideology, they're showing "battleground mentality" that isn't helpful for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere - I'm assuming good faith, and I will accept that you are unfamiliar with the judgment and why I was topic banned [21] - could you then kindly cross out this false story composed by you above? --> topic-banned from the history of Poland during WWII for anti-Semitic comments and edits. Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel unease about Chumchum7 using my comment to E-960. To be frank I said to E-960 to chill out, because I have feeling other users are provoking him into making statements that will be used to push for sanctions. Seriously at this moment some users are doing what can only be described as spamming numerous articles with every exaggerated detail about alleged atrocities by Poles, leading to situation where 30-40% of the article lenght is being dedicated to every claim that can be found, no matter how outlandish.I don't mind covering these topics at all, but at the moment it is getting out of hand and seriously is getting non-neutral.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Article was protected. E-960's proposed changes and opinion of the article were discussed here: [22] Two editors supported him, six editors disagreed. So consensus was 3:6 in favor of not implementing E-960's proposed changes. Protection was lifted. E-960 immediately made the changes that were rejected by most editors. I restored it (talk here: [23]). So it goes.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

In E-960's revert, not only did he defy consensus, he also introduced WP:OR -- The Jewish Yearbook of 1920 does not support In an effort to curb the abuses- the source says JULY 2. Warsaw: Anti-Jewish riot; fifteen Jews wounded, and one killed.—Warsaw: General Haller publishes proclamation in the Poranna, signed by Polish, English, and French representatives, ordering his troops to stop the cutting of beards of Jews.. - Haller order his troops to stop (before foreign representatives), however nothing in the source says this was an actual effort to effect a stop. Even, worse Soldiers involved in confirmed acts of antisemitism did receive punishment for their abusive actions. To counter some of the false or exaggerated claims of antisemitism that were reported by the press is not supported at all, and is in fact contradicted, by the cited source - page 227 in Carole Fink's book (who scare quotes "immediate investigation" on the Polish government response to reports of violence by the Blue Army, and then describes a Polish publicity/propaganda campaign). Beyond source falsification, attributing such a statement to Fink (via citation) is a rather serious WP:BLP issue vs. Fink. The issue of misrepresentation was clearly conveyed on the talk page and in the edits that modified content attributed to Fink. Icewhiz (talk) 10:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Faustian this text was added by Icewhiz on 05:26, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [24] and 05:59, 9 OCTOBER 2018 [25] in the middle of the edit war, there was NO CONSENSUS on the talk page to include this NEW text in the article — this is NOT long standing material, see last stable article version form 02:19, 9 SEPTEMBER 2018 [26]. --E-960 (talk) 06:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Incorrect - both on lack of consensus, and regarding the claim of addition. In both cases - as evident in the diffs - [27][28] - this was content that was long standing in the article but which cherrypicked/ORed (the Jewish Yearbook) or grossly misrepresented to the point of being defamatory to the cited author (Carole Fink) - which was corrected to faithfully represent what is actually written in the cited source. I will note that the gross misrepresentation was retorted by E-960 in a blanket revert on 21:31, 13 October 2018. WP:Verifying sources is important.Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This sequence - beginning with 10:17, 3 March 2018 is symptomatic of E-960's editing - with the false edit summary of "moved training company photos down" E-960 modified the section title from the long-standing Anti-Jewish violence to Reports of anti-Jewish violence. Subsequent consensus on the article talk page section - is clearly against this title (raising of false doubt and NPOV issue - and one should note - no credible source disputes the Blue Army's widespread violence against Jews - at best some marginal sources dispute the scale). Subsequently, and against consensus - 07:22, 15 October 2018 and mis-marked as a WP:MINOR edit (a personal attack? Seems to be insinuating vandalism) - E-960 restores the title he previously sneaked in with a false edit summary. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Although Icewhiz has a history of conflict with E-960, if their allegations above prove to be accurate, for what it's worth I would support a 3-month topic ban for E-960, based on the precedent of the simultaneous ban for Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek [29]. This is now a matter of (i) helping a disruptive editor to learn, (ii) fairness to previously-banned users, (iii) restoring discipline as well as (iv) the ongoing credibility of the process. If for bureaucratic reasons a filing needs to be done at WP:AE, I would support whoever does it. But I would urge administrators to finish this here and now. If as MyMoloboaccount points out, it is true that E-960 is being goaded, the tormentors need to be rooted out and assessed themselves. But they provide the disruptive editor here with no excuse. Responsibly for behavior is held by the individual who conducts the behavior. One always has the option of WP:BAIT and WP:DENY instead of allowing oneself to be provoked. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To the extent that it takes two to tango, and considering that E-90 is not the only one with a "history" here, and that as has been pointed out, users like Icewhiz are goading him, a similar sanction on Icewhiz - basically an extension of his previous topic ban from Polish-Jewish issues during WW2 to ALL Polish-Jewish issues - would also be in order. Volunteer Marek 06:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented for any such "goading". Ample evidence has been shown for edit warring (over a period of years) by E-960 against consensus, canvassing (e.g. [30]), misrepresenting sources, and using misleading edit summaries. I will also note this personal attack by Volunteer Marek against @Winged Blades of Godric:, and VM's very long "history" in this topic - harking back to WP:EEML and his recent ban as well. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no remote interest in the topic area but I'm all for assuming good faith and that VM, certainly did not intend it to be a personal attack against me.∯WBG^converse 07:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, I would recommend the said topic ban apply to all Poland-related content, not just Polish-Jewish relations. After all the problem appears to be extreme personal attachment to Poland's reputation in general, rather than anti-Semitism or a particular obsession with Jewish matters. This would also be to avert what François Robere identified above: that if the topic ban covers too small an area, the flow of trouble just redirects elsewhere and we all have to go through all this time-wasting again. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree completely. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't kindergarten, boys. You don't get cookie points for being "goaded", and you risk getting your cookies taken for falsely accusing someone of being a goad. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think much of this discussion, but read through - one of the editors is pointing out a pattern of modifying maps on Wikipedia such that they under-represent German presence or influence (though at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit). You'll notice this bears some similarity to another discussion from some weeks ago. François Robere (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... removing an WP:OR map created by a indef banned user [31] - who was indef banned for extensive sock puppetry, long term abuse, and pro-Nazi edits - ... and you, have a problem with this Francois? Care to explain why? Volunteer Marek 05:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all, which is why I wrote that at least on that occasion it wasn't without merit. "On that occasion", as later in the thread another case is mentioned which isn't so justified. What bothers me is what's in common for both discussions: the emphasis on ethnicity, misunderstanding census data, and disregarding conflicting sources. François Robere (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder whether the essay WP:NOTTHERAPY could be helpful reading. Perhaps troublesome editors in the WP:ARBEE area could all get together and agree that they love their grandparents very much, wherever they came from (it could even be an entrance requirement). And that it is high time to get out more [32]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The barnstar for a good sense of humor to you Chumchum7 (lol). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the issue of the map of German language use, pointed out above by Francois, on enwiki at Talk:German language#E-960's edits ceased after E-960 was blocked at commons on 17 August. Looking through their contributions (and record on various admin boards) at commons, it seems that much of their contributions there involve removing ethnic minorities from maps involving Poland - in the modern era (e.g. German - 1950, or various deletion requests (rejected as in use) - [33][34][35][36], Russian -[37]),, but also at 1 AD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:E-960 just blanked more info that he did not like here: [38]. Faustian (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User Faustian, did you not read what I wrote on this false claim in an earlier comment when it was first raised above, and the talk page disscussion, or you just ignore all that? You are talking about text added by user Icewhiz in the middle of an edit war, inserted with NO CONSENSUS. Pls, pls read the relevant disscussions before throwing around accusations of blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User Icewhiz, it just comes across as if you are tying to get me blocked, showing bad faith towards me in you comments, before you accuse me of "removing minorities" on WikiCommons map pls look at the history of the editor who created this original map user Michael Postmann, who was banned for, quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia (POV aus zweifelhaften Quellen, Verharmlosung des Nationalsozialismus. Schadet der Wikipedia)". So, I'm not sure what you are accusing me of, that I created a new map based of national census data from Poland, Czech Rep. and Slovakia, is this what you identify as removing minorities, using reliable reference sources to back up my material? --E-960 (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This may be somewhat unrelated here (and I apologize if this strays too far off topic), but would perhaps imposing a 1RR restriction on Blue Army (Poland) be beneficial here? I'm seeing a lot of back-and-fourth reverting in the article's history, and perhaps this should be considered. Thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Go for it, provided you don't avoid the wider problem and do objectively review E-960's diffs and Talk page comments. Otherwise the problem will arise elsewhere. Your 1RR could help distinguish (i) content disputes from (ii) behavioral issues, which still need to be resolved here. On that note, I happen to agree that there was a WP:OR map added showing German minorities in Poland that do not exist (Poland's only generally recognized German minority is in a small part of Silesia, not where it is dotted in turquoise all over that map of Poland), and that the allegations of E-960's anti-German sentiment (and support for ethnic cleansing of Germans) behind the removal were false if not actionable per WP:ARBEE. But that in no way justifies E-960's aggressive unilateralism and their failure to understand the basics of Wikipedia's civil and collegial consensus-building process, as evidenced above. The German-Polish map incident doesn't contradict E-960's need to change, in fact it provides further evidence of it, and I maintain that at this point they need to be sanctioned in order to learn. When you do the 1RR, please remember that revert-warring is not the article's fault, it's the user's. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User Chumchum, why not restrict user Icewhiz several users in the past complained the he puhes POV on Polish related topics. We opened a talk page discussion on how to condence the disputed section in the Blue Army article, and all of a sudden in comes user Icewhiz trying to add even more text. So, I do feel you are not objective when you just make arguments against me. --E-960 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Complaints or aspersions? François Robere (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

For the record I don't see a huge difference between the editing behavior per se of Icewhiz and E-960. I do see a difference in their civility, in that E-960 tends to combine the aggressive reverting documented above with getting very personal in response to disagreement, as evidenced above. More importantly, and unless I'm mistaken, Icewhiz has already been banned from a large part of the topic area while E-960 has not, and therefore unlike Icewhiz has not yet been provided with the tangible communication of their wrongdoing from our community that is meant to encourage behavioral reform. This said, I have just seen that E-960 is already in fact under a very serious three-month block regardless of topic area at Wikipedia Commons [39] where the administrator Эlcobbola _talk declined their unblock request by stating very clearly, and I bold the last sentence:

"Blocks are preventative rather than punitive. Characterisation as "severe and harsh" suggests you've no understanding of this objective. Further, there is no prescribed block duration, or progression of block durations. Indeed, durations are to be "proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour." (COM:BLOCK) You were previously blocked for edit-warring on 16 July 2018. As of at least 17 August 2018, more than a month later, you were still edit-warring (to say nothing of during that time). Clearly you've not familiarized yourself with our policies or adjusted your behaviour, but have rather demonstrated 1) having learned nothing from that previous block and 2) no improvement in more than a month. This supports at least a 3 month block. Being "right" ("I was informed that I can under WikiCommons rules create a new map since old maps no matter how incorrect should not be changed") is not an excuse. Jonny84's edits were wrong, but not vandalism. In such circumstances, you are to attempt to address the issues on the image talk page. If that fails, you may bring the issue to a notice board and wait for those discussions to produce a result. You do not get to edit war in the meantime. Further, as someone blocked for attacks and failures of good faith, to respond to this block with "This is extremely bias Sebari, it is clear that you have an anit-Polish agenda" [1] only supports the notion that you do not seem capable of adjusting your behaviour during shorter block durations. If the edit-warring and personal attacks continue after this block, the next will be indefinite."

It may be that for one reason or another E-960 is actually attracted to the idea of going out fighting like some mythological hero. Because this is either going to end up as an indefinite block or they immediately make amends, right now, with self-reverts and inviting difference of opinion by meeting their opponents such as Icewhiz on Talk pages to work at consensus in the name of WP:WIKILOVE. Real heroes have done it before [40] -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

user:Chumchum7, I will say this, that perhaps admins are overlooking a very effective tool, inserting a formal WARNING (template) on an editor's talk page with a clearly defined next step/consequence and reason. In the spirit of constructive criticizm, I need to say that the way I was treated on WikiCommons was simply unfair. User:Elcobbola you yourself said that Jonny84 was clearly in the wrong and his edits were disruptive (though not vandalizm), yet you or the other admin involved did not formally warn Jonny84 that his editing was wrong and that he needed to stop re-inserting the reverted material and disscusd instead, you simply smacked a 3 month block on me for reverting those edits. This despite the fact that I raised this issue on the admin noticeboard. You did not formally warn user Jonny84, yet this simple act might have averted an escalation, and prevented any peceived grievances or misunderstandings. In the end I do feel that the action to block me was rather reactionary. --E-960 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is utterly disingenuous. You have received numerous warnings over many years both here and on the Commons related to personal attacks and edit warring (certain edit warring only: [41], [42], [43], [44], etc) . You've routinely ignored them, and found yourself blocked as a consequence. This is not "simply unfair"; this is shameless obtuseness on your part and a repeated failure to act maturely or to take responsibility for your own actions (edit warring is edit warring and disallowed regardless of who is "right".) Indeed, here, again, you blame Jonny84 and admins for not using warning templates. Why en.wiki hasn't banned you from all Polish topics by now, I'll never know. Эlcobbola _talk 15:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Elcobbola, this is not really the place to discuss past issues form WikiCommons. However, I'll say this, that I'm not sure, why no one reacted when I was called out as a "polnischer Benutzer E-960" (Polish user E-960) and "seine xenophoben Fantasie-Karten so richtig auf die Nerven" (his xenophobic fantasy maps really get on my nerves), by user Jonny84 on a WikiCommons Forum in the German language [45]. Calling me a Polish user and a xenophobe — why? because I challenged the use of maps created by Postmann Michael, a user who was banned for quote: "POV from doubtful sources, playing down Nazism. Harms Wikipedia" and you have an editor accusing me of "xenophobic fantasies", when I at least provided some reliable reference sources such as national census data form Poland, Czech Rep, and Slovakia to disprove those maps, those are my fantasies, census data? --E-960 (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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 ([46], [47]) - vandalizing box-office data
• 27.97.28.205 ([48])
• 2405:204:D10E:F29C:2487:7A45:2113:988C ([49]) - profanity
• 27.61.22.115 ([50]) - profanity and box-office vandalism
• Fayismuhammed ([51])

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 [52] 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 ([53], [54], [55], [56]) and Lucifer (film) ([57]). 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 ([58], [59], [60] - this page was vandalizing since 17th October, I forgot to mention) and Janatha Garage [61], 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 [62], [63]; 1971: Beyond Borders [64], [65]. 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)

The Kid Who Would Be King

Can someone take a look at the article for the upcoming film The Kid Who Would Be King, please? An IP-hopping editor (I will refrain from calling him a vandal because some of his edits are actually useful, mixed in with a lot that are not) is simply intent upon having his way, repeatedly removing sourced information, adding information that is not sourced or poorly sourced (using IMDb, for example), and generally editing in an unhelpful manner. He's also resorted to personal attacks when I reverted him again. I'm going to keep my distance – I didn't revert his most recent edits – but some order needs to be restored and the anon. needs to be admonished not to edit war. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the cast list he is changing didn't have a source before he changed it. We don't even have any evidence the old one is better than the new one. What is your source for the old cast list? --Jayron32 16:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have one, and don't know what the source is or was when it was created. But, is it an improvement to replace one unsourced cast list with another one? And then to edit war over it? It might be best to remove it altogether until a source can be found. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't the IP's cast list sourced in the in-line ref in the lead paragraph? I see every addition to the cast list they added in there. And aren't most of their other corrections either sourced to the sources already there, or minor re-words? (I say "most" because the only thing that looks unsourced is the release date). So yeah, "vandalism" would have been a pretty poor choice of words. Seems like something the article talk page would be well suited for. I hope that if someone repeatedly reverted me for adding sourced edits with the edit summary "unsourced", I'd react better than the IP did, but I'm not 100% sure. Especially when you eventually switched to straight rollback with no edit summary. Two apparently good faith editors who disagree on specifics: take to talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Another issue here, which I neglected to mention above, are edits by a block-evading sock in this same IP range. A look at the edit history bears this out. So, my unexplained reverts were for that reason. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I posed the question of the block-evading sock to NRP, but he thinks they're unrelated. I apologize for my error. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014)

General Elections in the Donetsk People's Republic (2014) has the same issues as Protests in Armenia (2018), which were discussed a few days ago, here. The article is unreadable and should not be made visible in this state. I attempted earlier to reach out to the user and help with formatting, but have not been able to start a discussion (nor have others); I'll try again now. Per that earlier thread, the errors seem to be the result of machine translation. This is far beyond my abilities (translation/linguistics/patience-wise), but I thought I should report it. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an existing article, Donbass general elections, 2014. It dealt with both the DPR and LPR elections at the time they took place. It was deemed sensible to keep them together. The new article should be merged back into the old one, which I've now done. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

That fixes that article, but I have come to wonder whether Панн has difficulty with English. I have asked on his user talk. His global contributions and user talk page posts here suggest that Russian is his primary language. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Same situation, different article (let me know if I should start a new thread, but I thought it might be helpful to group the info): please see this version of Eduard Basurin, with Панн's recent additions. Runawayangel has just removed most of the article, which I fully support, because the previous version was unreadable. The situation has therefore been dealt with, but it's an ongoing issue that Панн is submitting content like this. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I would just like to bring attention to this page he has created, which seems to be confusing two different people. --Runawayangel (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one more article with the same issue. [66] --Runawayangel (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The Alexander Ananchenko article cites a reference in an edit summary without actually footnoting it in the text, so something odd is going on; but I suspect the wrong name in the text came from using another article as a template and forgetting to change it. This also doesn't seem to be an uncredited translation from another Wikipedia article; on the contrary, the Polish Wikipedia article seems to be derived from it. However, he has continued to edit without either responding here or answering anyone on his user talk, and if he does have serious problems with English, that's a serious competency issue. (His history on Commons and on ru.wikipedia both are also concerning; both have blocked him as a copyright violator; but he appears to be doing different things here.) So I'm going to ping in Ymblanter, the only Russian-speaking admin I can think of, in hopes he can talk with Панн. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I left a message at their homepage, I do not know whether it is going to help but at least then we have tried everything.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: We still have problems. Since you left your message, the editor has added machine translated text to Alexander Ananchenko, probably from the Polish Wikipedia article, which they cleaned up only minimally; here's what I had to do a day later to make it readable. They've also yet again uploaded a film poster at too high a resolution, and have also uploaded another file with a possibly poor fair use rationale; granted, I have no idea myself how to reduce the resolution of a file, which is why I avoid uploading posters, and I would not know how to write a good fair use rationale for a screenshot, but they've been told about excessively high resolution many times and have yet to ask for help from you or anyone else, just as they have not made any statement here. Perhaps the next step is an ultimatum to stop machine translating and an explanation of how to reduce resolution? @Панн: you need to talk to us, either on your talk page or here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Added a note at their talk page which I hope should be pretty clear.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for StreetSign (moved from AN)

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

---

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Proposed topic ban for StreetSign

StreetSign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy promoting a murder-related conspiracy theory without any reliable sources to back up his claims (A lot of his claims can be traced to articles/videos on Infowars and The Daily Mail). He is most active at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, but has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald.

He has received a DS alert.[67] Didn't change the behavior.

I propose a topic ban from all articles related to deaths or murders. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Unless I'm missing something, the editor clutters talk pages with their conspiracy theories and tries to get their own Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht turned into an article (They've been turned down at least 3 times.) I see only four article edits in the eight months they've been here, [68] one to Murder of Seth Rich and three to Robot navigation (?). They seem like someone who is essentially WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but to push their dingbat ideas. A topic ban as proposed seems like a good first step toward determining if they are here for the right reasons or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Note to closer: If consensus is in favor of an indef block or site ban, please count this as a vote in support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose in favor of an indefinite block - Seeing as they've made just 4 mainspace edits and after reading this discussion, the editor seems more interested in pushing their POV and adding irrelevant fluff that has no business being in an encyclopedia article. If the editor were productive in other areas (that is, by actually contributing to the encyclopedia), a topic ban would be sufficient, but seeing as they've already demonstrated they're a SPA, chasing the problem from one area to another isn't the answer. They can always be unblocked if they demonstrate they'll begin editing in mainspace and cease this radical behavior.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'll admit I thought about an indef block as well - and I wouldn't oppose one if that's the way consensus points -- but after thinking about it a bit, I thought that it would be better to start off with the topic ban suggested by Guy Macon and see where that leads. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I almost always favor a topic ban first rather than starting with an indef. For some users that is the push that moves them towards being a productive editor. For others it shuts down their "I wasn't violating any rules because I was right" arguments because now the rule they got indeffed for breaking was violating their topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• In this case, it's important to consider an editor's contributions when sanctioning them. I think lesser sanctions are only appropriate if they've already shown to be productive editors. Of course they can always be blocked if they violate their topic ban, but nipping the problem in the bud is a much better solution (I think) than likely going through multiple threads before saying 'enough is enough'. I don't foresee StreetSign contributing constructively to the project in the near future, but if consensus goes the way of a topic ban, so be it. I just don't think it'll have the desired effect and I would've normally supported a topic ban if it weren't for what StreetSign has already shown.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 08:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• You present a compelling argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Meta-discussion concerning the proper venue for this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment Generally it's useful to provide edit differences to show a pattern of behavior. Otherwise editors not familiar with them have no way to evaluate it. Also, DS alerts are not warnings to change behavior but advice on how to behave that can been sent to anyone involved in a controversial topic area. This request should usually be taken to ANI. Why is it posted here? TFD (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC) The "I" in ANI reflects the fact that ANI is for specific incidents (which of course should be supported by specific diffs), whereas AN is for patterns of behavior. In this case, anyone who reads Talk:Murder of Seth Rich can see the behavior. Yes, I could make a list of diffs showing each individual post StreetSign has made to Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, interspersed with the attempts of other editors to deal with them, buit you can get the same information by simply reading Talk:Murder of Seth Rich and determining whether you see the pattern of behavior or whether I am imagining it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC) No. "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators." WP:ANI is for BOTH "urgent incidents" AND "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." You should know that because you hatted a request for a topic ban of another user over their pattern of behavior and told them this was the wrong forum and they should file a report at ANI.[69] Note that ANI recommends posting edit differences demonstrating the problem. There is no reason for anyone to respond to this page unless they are an administrator answering a request. By posting here, not posting differences and canvassing on the Seth Rich talk page,[70] you are assuring that few uninvolved editors will weigh in. I a sure that is not your intention and suggest you take the matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC) I categorically deny "hatting a request for a topic ban of another user over their pattern of behavior". it was clearly about a couple of specific incidents. If you think that a section titled "Proposed topic ban for StreetSign" is the proper place to complain about ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants, unhat the comment and see if anyone agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC) @The Four Deuces: I was not meaning to suggest ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants should be topic banned from the Murder of Seth Rich article, because that isn't the only article where he's been removing others' talk page posts. A more beneficial sanction would be a restriction against editing or removing others' comments, on all talk pages. 46.243.232.45 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC) At the top of this page it says, "This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators." At the topic of ANI it says that page is for BOTH "urgent incidents" AND "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Can you explain how you read this to mean that patterns of behavior should be addressed on this page? TFD (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Guy Macon and TFD, these exchanges between y'all are unhelpful because it's only making the thread go off-topic. Sure, it could've been taken to ANI, but since it's already at AN, there's no need to argue semantic over the location of this thread (or any thread for that matter) and y'all should just let it be. If this thread starts going the way of other users conduct on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, again it doesn't matter if it's on AN or ANI, either it has something to do with this complaint or it doesn't, but please try and keep the discussion about StreetSign and everyone else's relevant conduct on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich instead of going back and forth over some technicalities.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC) It's not semantics or technicalities, but whether this forum would attract proper input from the community, especially after canvassing. In any case, the discussion could have been avoided by putting the request in the proper forum and provided edit differences. TFD (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Well, if you think this should be moved to ANI, perhaps you should be WP:BOLD and move it instead of going back and forth on it (something like "discussion moved to ANI"/"discussion moved from AN"). My point is if anyone thinks this is the wrong forum, they should take action instead of wasting their time flooding this discussion arguing over it. As for Guy Macon canvassing I agree his conduct should be looked at, but that's a separate issue and I'm sure that'll be noticed by others as this discussion progresses (whether it was at AN or ANI).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I have no objections to this being moved to ANI with a link. I of course have no objections to an ANI case about my behavior, but I would remind any administrators reading this that I have a longstanding policy that if any administrator (and most users, but the offer is not open to not every troll and first-edit IP) goes to my talk page and warns me not to do something, I immediately stop doing it whether I agree or not -- possibly engaging in further discussion if the warning is not clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I'll go ahead and move it to ANI then (I'm sure nobody will object to my bold action).—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC) I have no objection to the move, however, in point of fact, AN is the correct place for suggestions for bans and blocks, so it was not necessary to move this report. Historically, if a ban or block suggestion arose from an incident report filed at ANI, then it was kept at ANI, but if one was initiated from that start, it is AN that has been considered to be the correct venue. I think that makes a great deal of sense, since ANI tends to be more volatile, while reports at AN get more quality consideration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:TPOC; Off-Topic: Please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI if you think another user has misbehaved. This is the wrong place for it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In addition to StreetSign, there is another user on this article whose conduct needs to be examined: user:MPants at work, who has been removing others' posts from the article's talk page in violation of WP:TPOC. A month ago, he was warned about this behaviour by user:Ritchie333. [71] [72] However, he has continued to remove others' talk page posts three times in the past week. [73] [74] [75] I previously raised this matter on the article talk page, and Mpants' response was to encourage an AN report about himself, implying that if he were reported for violating the talk page guidelines, the report would result in sanctions for StreetSign instead of himself. If his own conduct and StreetSign's is linked that closely, then it's necessary for the report to cover both users. I have no opinion about whether StreetSign should be topic banned, but the sanctions should not be applied in a lopsided way: either sanction both editors or neither of them. 46.243.232.45 (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC) LOL if anyone actually thinks this is worth looking into, I invite them to try to justify not removing the comments I have removed. Note that the warning from Ritchie333 was for edit warring over the removal of straight up trolling. I stand by every talk page removal I've ever made, and the only thing I did wrong that last time was not getting the IP blocked for their trolling in order to head off their edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Let's be clear, here: are you saying that you maintain there's nothing wrong with the behaviour you were warned for, and you intend to continue doing it? 46.243.232.45 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC) Please feel free to file a report at WP:ANI if you think ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants has misbehaved. This is the wrong place for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Mythdon, this user's barely touched mainspace; if the talk contributions are as nutso as claimed (I've not looked into it), they can be reverted and ignored, and either nothing will happen or the user will be sanctionable for edit-warring. Also, banned from death or murders is really broad; murders are rather specific, but virtually everything touches on death to some extent. The proposed ban is basically saying "you can edit on nuclear physics, mathematics, astronomy, and similar topics", so we might as well siteban if such a broad-ranging sanction is appropriate. No opinion on a siteban. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objection to a topic ban on murders only. Could you please point to the specific part of WP:TPOC that supports "if the talk contributions are as nutso as claimed, they can be reverted and ignored"? My reading of that policy is that I may only remove harmful posts such as personal attacks, vandalism, BLP/Copyright violations, etc., but can only TEMPLATE:HAT off-topic or "nutso" comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• If these aren't harmful, why are you trying to get him banned? {{Not a forum}} notes that off-topic comments can be removed or refactored; if they're not harmful and you're not comfortable removing or refactoring them, just ignore them. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Evasion noted. Again I ask, what part of TPOC allows deletion (as opposed to archiving or collapsing) of "nutso" comments (or, more to the point, removal of a persistent attempts to promote pseudoscience)? Last time I checked, Template:Not a forum is not a policy or guideline.

The definition at WP:TPOC of harmful posts is

"Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived."

If it is your opinion that users cannot be topic banned because of disruptive behavior, please point me to a policy or guideline that says that. TPOC is quite clear in saying that not all disruptive behavior may be deleted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Switching to oppose everything because the proposer cannot be trusted to read anything, whether standard templates or statements to which he's replying, and thus his arguments cannot be trusted to reflect reality. Further irrelevant comments will be subjected to the same ignoring that I already suggested. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a (cough) different way of not answering a simple question! If somebody else who doesn't have a stick up his ass thinks I have misinterpreted any policy or guideline, please explain my error. I do make mistakes and welcome corrections.

To review:

• WP:TPOC lists two kinds of talk page behaviors: disruptive and always deletable (harmful), and disruptive but usually not deletable.
• Nyttend appears to say above that disruptive behavior on talk pages should not be reported here because the disruptive comments can always be deleted. (I say "appears to say" because he doesn't seem to be very keen on clarifying his statements if somebody misunderstands them.)
• When asked to resolve the apparent contradiction, Nyttend responded with a bit of minor incivility and "changing" his !vote from Oppose to Oppose. (?)

I am going to WP:IAD and stop responding now, allowing Nyttend to have the last word if he chooses. --Guy Macon (talk)

• Oppose in favor of a siteban or indef block without impunging upon Guy's judgement here at all: a topic ban would stop the disruption, but I think it would either be indistinguishable from a siteban/indef, or else it would result in StreetSign pushing a different conspiracy theory at a different article. Streetsign doesn't like to actually edit articles, which is a huge WP:NOTHERE flag, just to pester other editors to add the conspiracy theory nonsense for them, all while denying believing in the conspiracy theories to begin with. This editor is clearly here to spread word of this conspiracy theory and not for any other reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  impunging upon – I can't even come up with a pictorial pun for that one. EEng 14:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I intended to write "impinging upon" but if you'll ignore some iffy-if-not-entirely-untoward grammar, "impunging upon" still works. I gfuess it's sort of a semi-self-correcting typo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose -- the behavior of his accusers is far more concerning--deleting and hiding talk page comments by StreetSign who is discussing WP:RS like Newsweek, Washington Post, and CNN. A wp:boomerang may be in order. Comments directed to other editors at the talk page like "Untwist your tits." and "You're obviously incapable of understanding that the problems only exist in your head." do not make for a constructive editing environment. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Note that David here has also been engaging in some drive-by WP:FRINGE POV pushing. See this comment in which he deliberately (and admittedly) cherry picks the only RSes they could find that treat the conspiracy theory as anything other than unmitigated bullshit and try to leverage that into a claim that it's wrong for us to refer to it as "false", despite an overwhelming preponderance of sources describing it as such. Also note that exactly 0 of the "insults" (none of which are actually insults) David provided were written in response to StreetSign, despite the obvious implication otherwise. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read WP:POVPUSH: The term 'POV-pushing' is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. -Obsidi (talk) 02:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

lol WIkilawyer much? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not my fault if you don't understand policy/guidelines. -Obsidi (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

LOL God you really can't help yourself, can you? You know that continuing to harp on about me without taking me to ANI is a violation of that policy you thin kyou know so well, right? See WP:HARASS. Put up or shut up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"[E]xactly 0 of the "insults"...were written in response to StreetSign." True. That's why I qualified it with "Comments directed to other editors at the talk page." Streetsign claims s/he was treated similarly, and that seems likely. I did not have the patience to read all the comments. Perhaps, Streetsign will provide the diffs.

"insults" (none of which are actually insults) Are you really going to tell everyone here with a straight face that "Untwist your tits." is not an insult?

As to the final claims, it is not cherry-picking to request inclusion of material that is not represented in the article that is represented in reliable sources, when that purpose is to achieve WP:NPOV. It has been long standing WP:NPOV policy that we do not write what is in the preponderance of sources as WP:TRUTH and declare all else as "false" and leave it out. We include all significant opinions found in WP:RS in proportion to their representation in the WP:RS. WP:NPOV gives examples of what we do leave out entirely of articles: Flat earth or Moon landing conspiracy theories. Theories like those have no WP:RS to support them. The material I mention has WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely IS cherry picking to pick two sources out of dozens to support a particular claim, and we both know this. If you can't engage honestly, you should not be here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Good Lord! I don't know how much time I have to come up with a defense, so this will be hastily prepared, and probably will not cover every point. But here goes. I have never posted anything to an article without gaining a consensus first, with the possible exception of the actual address of the Seth Rich murder (fully documented). For that one I got a "be bold" comment, which I followed, and the addition is still in the article (as it should be). I do not subscribe to any "conspiracy theories" at all. I do believe that MPants and Macon (along with a very few others) are frantic to prevent inclusion of the Job Offer From the Clinton Campaign to Seth Rich Four Days Before Seth Was Murdered in the article. It was Seth Rich's Father who made that statement, and it was published most notably by WashingtonPost and CNN, and even exists in a video of Seth Rich's father looking into a camera and saying it. I have posted links in my previous Talk page comments. I believed that the Talk page was the appropriate place to reach a consensus, so that is where I made my posts. I never engaged in arguing, name calling, or insults, which Pants and Macon did repeatedly. They rolled up, and in some cases actually deleted my posts. Not revisions to the article, posts on the Talk page. If I can find the time, and if you can be patient enough, I will make a concise posting of what was written. I have repeatedly tried to reach a consensus. Some of the items that I listed for consideration were there to prompt them to discuss the relative merits of each documented fact. Almost all that they describe as "conspiracy theories" were published facts. The job offer to Seth Rich is the center of the storm of all this. That is where the insults and accusations began. It has been ugly. I have resisted the temptation to engage in such behavior. I have been patient and persistent in seeking a consensus and compromise. I will need time to assemble a record of their behavior, and then you may compare it to my behavior. They repeatedly hide or delete the facts (even on the Talk page) before any support for including the facts can be reached. It is terrible behavior. These are the articles I posted on the Talk page about: Discussions on this Talk page to include the factual and well documented statements by Seth's father (Washington Post, CNN, and Seth Rich's father on video) about the Clinton campaign job offer to Seth Rich four days before he was murdered is not pointless trivia. "WashingtonPost" "CNN source. Video of Seth Rich's father. Please help. My intentions and my actions are good. StreetSign (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC) Look at the outright lies in this request for proposed ban, "StreetSign (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log) has been busy promoting a murder-related conspiracy theory without any reliable sources to back up his claims (A lot of his claims can be traced to articles/videos on Infowars and The Daily Mail). He is most active at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich, but has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald." Blatant lies by Macon. I primarily post quotes with references, almost all are from Washington Post and CNN. The video is only found on Daily Mail (probably copyright). I created a Mark Hausknecht article. It was factual and sourced. These are terrible lies. StreetSign (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I note that in your posting to the Oswald talk page you pointed out that a letter mentioned in the article was found to be a forgery and is no longer in the article. In the case of Dr. Mark Hausknecht, you wrote a draft article which was rejected as non-notable. Hausknecht was apparently murdered as revenge for an operation he had performed decades before. I don' know why these are mentioned above since there is absolutely nothing wrong with how you approached either one. TFD (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone implied anything either way about those edits (I certainly didn't; I have not examined them). So why are they mentioned at all? It may turn out that the consensus is for a topic ban (currently in second place behind an indef block, with pretty much everyone who says "do nothing" also being of the opinion that the conspiracy theories in question are true). That raises the question of the scope of the topic ban (Just Seth Rich, all murders, or all conspiracy theories?), and for making that decision StreetSign's interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark Hausknecht are relevant. Again, I don't accuse someone of something when I have not looked at the evidence, and in this case I have only looked at the Seth Rich edits, which clearly promote the exact same conspiracy theory that Infowars and The Daily Mail have been promoting, insisting that we include the exact same irrelevant trivia that those sources say are the key to establishing that Rich was the source of the DNC emails at WikiLeaks (no evidence of that) and that he was killed because of his involvement (no evidence of that either). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You stated when you opened this discussion thread that Streetsign has "has touched upon Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald."[76] I assume you mentioned them because you proposed "a topic ban from all articles related to deaths or murders." Now you say that you never looked at those edits. Then why did you mention them? I feel irritated that I took the time to read Streetsign's edits on those articles when you now tell me they are wholly irrelevant to the case you are presenting. TFD (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered. And please don't stuff words in my mouth. "Wholly irrelevant" and "relevant to the question of the scope of the proposed topic ban" are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Trying again

There's too much bickering and not enough simple discussion above. So here's the reason Guy (and I, and more than a few others) have gotten sick of StreetSign's commentary at this article:

• This is Streetsign's talk space contributions. ~88% are about the topic of Seth Rich, with an additional ~11% about different murder-related conspiracy theories and only 2 edits about anything else. That StreetSign is an SPA is inarguable.
• Here is StreetSign's first thread on this subject. Note that a clear consensus was reached, and yet StreetSign continued to bludgeon the discussion until it was collapsed, multiple times.
• Here is StreetSign's very next thread. Note the dates: as soon as they were shot down at one article, they went to another. This is clear evidence that StreetSign's concern is this particular claim, not improving the project in general.
• Here is their next posting at the page. Note the obvious attempt to try to get their sources declared reliable in order to get back to pushing for the inclusion of this content.
• This actually predated the last link. StreetSign was trying to do the same thing: get their sources declared "reliable" in order to push for the addition of this claim.
• Here's StreetSign posting to the "Streisand Effect" article. I'll give you three guesses what it's about. It sure ain't about Barbara's wings.
• Here's an example of StreetSign jumping in to an existing discussion. I'll give you three guesses what he wants to talk about.
• Here's StreetSign's most recent "main" thread. One wonders why we would need to go into such detail as to name the responding officer. Or rather, one would wonder if one wasn't already aware that StreetSign has been searching for months for an excuse to justify including his bit about the job offer.
• And here he is again! No comment. Just read it for yourself.

Now, I'll happily admit that StreetSign has been somewhat mistreated at that article. Their comments have been dismissed, and they've been generally treated with some condescension and frustration. The reason for this should be obvious. We are all sick and tired of responding to the same bullshit arguments from the same stubborn editor for months. This is literally the definition of "disruption". A topic ban would work, but per this, a topic ban would be virtually indistinguishable from an indef. I really don't know what else to say. I wish Guy has provided some evidence, but I understand why he didn't: The talk page and the most recent archive of it should be evidence enough. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Tornheim. Really this relatively new editor has been trying to introduce facts cited to RS. And he has been treated horribly by MjolnirPants. He was asking to introduce rather innocuous facts cited to multiple RS, and the other editors seem to have opposed that because they fear adding these well sourced facts would "add support to the conspiracy theory." Facts are facts and shouldn't be excluded because they support or undercut any POV narrative. -Obsidi (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

More off-topic sniping. Can you folks please knock it off? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LOL You can't even be bothered to read the edits you respond to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I did actually read it. Yet one more example of uncivil behavior. -Obsidi (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Ahh, so you read it, and then you made your accusation again, even though your accusation is directly addressed and refuted in my comment. So your response wasn't just ignorant, it was intentionally ignorant. Gotcha. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC) No. I just disagreed that your comment refuted anything I said. And please stop the personal attacks of calling those who disagree with you ignorant. -Obsidi (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You didn't address a single thing I said. You certainly never disagreed with anything, you just threw bullshit. And it's not a personal attack to point out that your argument is crap. If you can't tell the difference between comments on you personally, and comments on your arguments or claims, then you have no business on this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• The "rather innocuous facts" that StreetSign is pushing for include "The known email accounts, social media accounts, and posts of Seth Rich", "The name and badge number of the responding officer" and "The names and badge numbers of the assisting officers". Totally irrelevant. In an amazing coincidence, these are the exact same facts that the conspiracy theory websites say prove that Seth Rich was killed because he was the source of the DNC emails at WikiLeaks. You have to feel for those poor cops who are suddenly being accused of being part of a murder conspiracy on a bunch of nutjob websites... --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He proposed like 13 additional facts, some of which were relevant and not included in the article, and others less so. But most of the debate I have seen concerns his being offered a job by the Clinton campaign a few days before he was murdered. -Obsidi (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Which is relevant...how? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

In an article concerning a murder, the location of said murder seems relevant to me. -Obsidi (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Evasion noted. The location of the murder is already in the article, and I asked (and you ignored) how his being offered a job by the Clinton campaign a few days before he was murdered is relevant. On second thought, don't bother answering. We already know where you stand on WP:FRINGE theories:[77][78] I'm done. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The location of the murder is in the article now due to StreetSign [79]. For which he was harangued in the talk page when he proposed it Talk:Murder_of_Seth_Rich#More_Off-Topic_Conspiracy_Theories, including you changing the title of the section from "Some facts that are not yet included, which would improve article significantly" to "More Off-Topic Conspiracy Theories."[80]. That was one of the 13 facts which I was talking about above. And that second cite above by Guy Macon was not from me, here was my reply [81]. -Obsidi (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Mostly off-topic back-and-forth. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Forget asking Obsidi to discuss content (I highly doubt their competence to discuss content related to conspiracy theories anyways). Instead, Obsidi, please explain how that section excuses the 8 months of conspiracy theory pushing that preceded it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC) How about we focus on the conduct at issue rather than personally attacking people because you don't like their !vote? I see 8 months of him trying to get facts from RS added to an article and you blocking him every step of the way while being mean and attacking him repeatedly. -Obsidi (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Get your panties unbunched; nobody was personally attacked here. And I've just directly asked you to discuss the conduct issue so... You've seen (or at least had the chance to see) by now that a clear consensus developed against adding this material every single time it was brought up. Your refusal to acknowledge this has been noted, but isn't really what's on my mind right now. Instead, I wanna talk about you repeatedly lying through your fucking teeth about how "mean" I've been to StreetSign. My first response was to tell the other respondents to cut the OP some slack, including a link to show that I'm not entirely there to defend the OP. In my second edit, I agreed with the 4 other editors that this was likely POV pushing, but pointed out that they had a factual claim with an RS, and that we can't just assume they are there for POV pushing; they might just be new to WP and need some help. How fucking "mean" was that? My third comment was a reminder to those other editors to WP:AGF. My god, what kind of asshole would do such a thing?! My next two comments were collegiate engagement with StreetSign, explaining why his argument is getting no traction. Do you know what I got in response? Empty bitching about "bad taste" because I posted a link to WP:STICK. Next came StreetSign's Second thread, which I never even responded to. Damn, that was really mean of me, wasn't it? Then, when StreetSign tried for the third time at WP:RSN, I responded to that with collegiate explanations, again. Explainations which I continued to give without anything even remotely resembling a personal attack or hint if incivility. Of course, StreetSign can't claim the same, as my next edit had to include a warning to them not to engage in personal attacks. I'm gonna stop here. Because I've already proven that your repeated accusation that I've been "mean" to StreetSign throughout this is pure fucking bullshit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You publicly doubt my competence to edit and you call that not a personal attack? And you respond by telling me to "Get your panties unbunched"? Do you know what civil behavior is? You said "your thought process about this subject... is so bizarre that you probably have no business writing anything meant to be read by the kind of readership WP has."[82]. When you call someone's work shit and someone on your side of the argument has to respond with It's just MjolnirPants being MjolnirPants [83]. Something is wrong with this behavior. And that is before we get to you not once, but twice editing his talk page comments. -Obsidi (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC) You know what? Open a new ANI thread. Go ahead. Let's ask the community to look into my editing, and while they're at it, they can take a close look at yours, too. Which of us is going to come out ahead, I wonder? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC) What kind of sanction would I be seeking? A site ban? I think we know that isn't going to happen, nor would it happen if you proposed it for me. Seems like an act of futility and just a waste of everyone's time. That doesn't mean these minor uncivil acts are good, and I will continue ask people to be more civil. -Obsidi (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but you showing up here, making bullshit accusations is not a waste of time at all? Or, for that matter, you showing up in a thread about AQFK to cast shade on Greyfell? I suppose that's not a waste of time at all, even though there's no chance in hell you accomplish anything there, either. Or your incredibly wrongheaded proposal about how to label conspiracy theories. Yeah, you think we should obfuscate the truth and ignore what RSes say in order to lend false validity to conspiracy theories because it's "unfair" to call them conspiracy theories. Seriously? What makes you think that would ever fly? I suggest you not be so sure you wouldn't get indeffed in an ANI thread with an editing history like yours, and try to do something about it, like fucking off from the drama boards and actually contributing something to this project other than an uninformed opinion. Go fix grammar or something, or write about your favorite TV show. Do whatever else you can, so you can continue to slip under the radar here. Because I promise you that if you keep spending almost 50% of your edits casting shade at ANI the way you have been, you're going to end up shown the door sooner rather than later. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC) I would be happy to talk with you or anyone else about my comments on completely unrelated subjects, no matter how "incredibly wrongheaded" you think they are, but this is not the forum for that. -Obsidi (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban or Block - it's pretty clear that they are here only to push fringe viewpoints and/or get their conspiracy theories included in the talk page/search history.--Jorm (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment StreetSign appears to be a conspiracy enthusiast who is using standard conspiracy enthusiast tactics to dump conspiracy theory hobbyhorses into an article plagued by ... conspiracy theories. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for credulous accounts of supposed conspiracies, but CT-associated article tend to attract editors who post walls of text in support of loads of "innocuous facts" that jive with the POV they're trying to promote - in this case that Rich was murdered by somebody associated with or guided by the DNC, something that his family has resorted to legal action to try to refute, since they feel that Rich's murder has been used for political gain by partisans and conspiracy enthusiasts. This has gone on long enough, and it 's time for some form of editing restriction. Acroterion (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

StreetSign Trying Again

Sorry for any slowness in my response, but I am now one of a small group of caregivers, and sleep is becoming a more significant issue. It is disingenuous for a few editors to repeatedly prompt a vote, declare victory, and roll up a discussion, or in some cases just delete it entirely, when all I ever wanted was continued discussion how to include the fact fairly and impartially. The Talk page guidelines include "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." Notice that these same few editors are trying to block me from even Talking about the article, and that what I want to talk about is a documented fact, not a conspiracy theory. I would never propose the inclusion of anything that is not a verifiable, published fact. The job offer to Seth Rich from the Clinton campaign, four days before he was shot and killed is a fact. I understand that it is an inconvenient fact, and might be unrelated, but it was significant enough that his own father spoke about it, and described that it was the reason that Seth was walking around in the wee hours of the morning, talking to family and friends on the phone, and "pondering" it. That is what he said, and it is documented. I understand that not everyone believes that it is significant, and that some people do not want it known, but it is a fact. The other facts that I offered for consideration were to encourage comparison and Relative importance. They were there to be provocative, and encourage discussion. But that never happened. What happened was more name calling, more hiding of the proposed topic, which was always for me the job offer fact. I propose a civilized compromise. Let me state the documented fact of the job offer on the Talk page, and allow it to be seen and considered by other editors. If you disagree with the fact I post on the Talk page, make a post there and challenge it, but please do not insult me, curse me, or accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, and close the discussion. I will not make any change to the article itself. I believe that there is a way to include the fact eventually in a neutral manner, and I am serious about finding some neutral ground. If I include anything that is not Verifiable, roll it up, and ban me for life. Seriously, I mean it. I will leave and never come back. I make this offer in complete sincerity. Can we agree to be civilized? StreetSign (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Same basic mental error as before. The statement "A Cockcroft–Walton multiplier steps up relatively low voltages to extremely high values, while at the same time being far lighter and cheaper than transformers" is also verifiable. And it is found in multiple reliable sources. Should we add the statement about the CW multiplier to the Seth Rich article? No, because, while true, it is irrelevant. Verifiability alone is not enough reason for inclusion. You also have to show relevance. This has been explained to you multiple times, but you refused to listen. And that is why so many uninvolved editors have looked at your edits and decided that you should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. Demonstrating that you have no idea what you did wrong or why everyone except a few of your fellow conspiracy theorists is is mad at you is not helping your case. You may want to read Law of holes before commenting further.

You have never explained why you think the job offer is relevant to the murder, leaving us to conclude that you want everyone to focus on it for the same reason the conspiracy theory websites are focusing on it -- an unfounded belief that the two are somehow related. Why do we call you a conspiracy theorist? The duck test – "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" – suggests that something can be identified by its habitual characteristics. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have explained why the job offer is relevant, but it is repeatedly rolled up or deleted before very many people can read it. Because Seth Rich's father thought it was relevant. This is what he said in the video: Joel Rich speaking on camera (slightly non-linear, but very real speech): “... he had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered, which was, as you get into politics, he had worked on the Senate campaign, he had worked at the, helping some people running for the House, he had been at the DNC in 2014 for the, that campaign, and the other campaign he had always wanted to work on was the presidential, and he had just found out that he was, that they wanted him, and he was probably going to be moving up to Brooklyn, through the election, and he was really excited about that.” It is Seth's father who explains why Seth was walking around talking on the phone that night. Not me. I am not making it up. Do you need Seth's father to explain to you why it is important? He stated that Seth was probably going to be moving up to Brooklyn, through the election, and was really excited about that." We cannot pretend that we do not know. I am serious about finding a neutral way of including this fact. It will not happen overnight. The Talk page is where this belongs at this point. Not in the article. On the Talk page. Stop rolling it up. Stop deleting it. Stop calling me a conspiracy theorist. 'Don't try to ban me for wanting to discuss a fact on the Talk page.' That would not be a solution. It would be an escalation. Just be reasonable. Let us all be reasonable. What do you object to in the compromise I proposed above? StreetSign (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You clearly fail to understand what you did wrong and why so many people want to either site ban or block you, despite it being explained to you repeatedly. I am done responding to you, and in fact if I see anything else with your signature on it I will skip to the next comment. [ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot discuss a documented fact without calling for a ban, you should stop responding. I have made a reasonable proposal, which is completely in line with the Wikipedia Talk guidelines, which is "Share material: The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." I understand that it is controversial, but it is a fact and it is verifiable. What you are attempting to do is completely wrong. Wikipedia should not ban an editor for attempting to discuss a documented fact on the Talk page. I have not posted it to the article, and I have not reverted anything by anyone. Do not make this worse. I am preparing some alternate proposals. StreetSign (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all articles and talk pages related to deaths or murders, but oppose block. Sometimes people make a start to Wikipedia in the wrong way. Sometimes people get obsessed with things; he/she needs to break the obsession for his/her own good. Because the obsession distorts judgment, the contributions were disruptive. A topic ban would be good for him/her. It would allow him/her to edit on other topics. A block would not be so healthy, as it would encourage him/her to believe that he/she was being victimised (i.e. that Wikipedia was part of the conspiracy).-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban it is clear that StreetSign cannot edit on this subject in an objective manner. A topic ban should be tried before a block however.Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and if they can't or won't abide by that, a block. Maybe they can learn how editing on Wikipedia works somewhere else where their passions won't be so influential. zchrykng (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I've been keeping an eye on this one (from a distance because I had enough Wikipedia drama of my own last week) and it would appear that StreetSign would benefit from learning how to edit constructively in other areas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or indef. Note my struck !vote above. As I've said, a topic ban and an indef are functionally the same in this case, and if there's even a slim chance StreetSign can get their act together working on another subject, it's worth it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Is CNN a conspiracy theory site? No. It is not. But CNN published that Seth Rich's father said that Seth received a job offer from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered. Is the Washington Post a conspiracy theory site? No it is not. But WaPo published that Seth Rich's father said that Seth received a job offer from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered. If you don't want to include it in the article, then don't. But it is absolutely inappropriate to block an editor from wanting to discuss it on the Talk page. Wikipedia guidelines address this situation "New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article; this is an especially good idea if the new material (or topic as a whole) is controversial." If I had posted un-sourced claims in the article, I could understand a ban. But I did not. If I posted verifiable facts in the article, and did more than one revert, I could understand a ban. But I did not. If I posted un-verifiable claims in Talk, I could understand a ban. But I did not. I posted a verifiable, published fact (from completely mainstream publications) only on the Talk page, and I was insulted, accused of being a conspiracy theorist, and had my Talk repeatedly rolled up, and in some cases completely deleted. I am completely unaccustomed to such behavior. It has brought out the worst in everyone. Please consider my compromise proposal. Do not over-react. StreetSign (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• indef I just reviewed this person's edit count and walked through their contribs at the Seth Rich Murder page. I guess they get some points for trying to persuade others on talk pages instead of editing directly in mainspace... (and I do mean that) but a) their understanding of what we do in mainspace here in Wikipedia is not correct, and b) their inability to understand how to drop a stick has made them a timesink for people working on that page. They have been civil, but have been unreasonable in their WP:Civil POV pushing. From their first edit in February 2018 to today, they have been bludgeoning the page pushing primarily to include a detail about a job offer from the clinton campaign, which is important in the conspiracies (see this comment from them). See also here, where they want to include hyper-detail like badge numbers of responding officers. This person is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather has been abusing our open-ness to try to persuade others to turn WP into an anchor for conspiracy theorizing (at least). The quality of sources they have brought is telling. They earnestly brought up a story from Gateway Pundit for pete's sake. Good faith is not a suicide pact and WP is not therapy. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef. I've spent some time reading through their posts, and their inability to listen and understand is quite baffling. Their proposals in this thread (especially the "alternative proposal" below) make it quite clear that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to Tell The Truth (except as befits a conspiracy theorist, it is not exactly the truth). Too many people's time is being wasted on this. --bonadea contributions talk 17:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is my alternate proposal

I will voluntarily refrain from posting on the Murder of Seth Rich Talk page for 365 days if you will allow a post on the Talk page that states the following (or equivalent): "Seth Rich's father publicly stated that Seth received a job from the Clinton campaign four days before he was murdered, and that he was walking, talking to family and friends, and pondering the offer the night he was killed. That fact is documented on CCN and WaPo, but the majority of editors have decided not to include it in the Murder of Seth Rich Article, because it is not relevant. " Allow editors to comment for the 365 days. Do not roll up Talk on the subject. Do not insult me or call me a conspiracy theorist. I will then voluntarily refrain from posting on the Murder of Seth Rich Talk page for 365 days. StreetSign (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Allow editors to comment for the 365 days. Dozens of editors have already commented on this over the course of the 8 months you have been repeating it. Without exception, they have rejected it. This "alternate proposal" is just more of the same stuff that led to this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

We don’t usually leave a topic open for 365 days. How about a RfC on the subject (which will be opened for 30 days usually) and no one slow closes it for a week, and you agree to a 1 year page ban from Murder of Seth Rich. Would that work for you StreetSign? -Obsidi (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Since when do we negotiate topic bans and blocks? Now that I'm here, I certainly won't allow that text to remain on the talk page. No. I think he gets a topic ban, full stop.--Jorm (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Its common for people subjected to a possible ban/block to suggest an alternative that might mitigate the problem and resolve the disagreement. The question is if there is more consensus for his proposal rather than the others currently proposed. Until this thread is closed, it seems appropriate for him to try and get consensus for a preferred alternative. -Obsidi (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Since never. I am currently reviewing this thread, and will be enacting at least a Seth Rich topic ban soon; just reviewing non-Seth Rich edits to see if there are similar problems there in order to come up with a reasonable scope of the topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

That was certainly a BOLD request, but I think a perfectly normal topic ban would be more appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm running out of time in real life and don't want to rush thru this and mess something up, so a close isn't imminent. There are pages I'm supposed to log this stuff and I'd have to study and relearn where they were. If this is still unclosed late tonight I'll close it then. FWIW to any other potential closer, I was about to enact a Seth Rich topic ban, for disruptively bludgeoning the same topic over months, but I didn't see sufficient disruption at Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht and Lee Harvey Oswald to extend the topic ban further than that. However, that's technically what people were supporting/opposing, and there's a consenus for "support topic ban", so I would maybe have been supervoting slightly by not expanding it further than Seth Rich. That's still what I plan to do if this isn't closed by this evening, but if someone does a wider topic ban before I get back I wouldn't argue. Also, if this is closed by someone else with a relatively limited topic ban, a warning that similar behavior on other topics will be dealt with much more promptly might be reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

If StreetSign start doing the same thing at a different article, we can just do this again, and that would certainly result in an indef. So I wouldn't see an admin taking the lesser of multiple proposed sanctions as any sort of supervote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Let's give them some WP:ROPE - perhaps StreetSign realizes from a TBan on Seth Rich related topics that tendentious editing is frowned upon and chills out, starts editing productively. Hey, win all around. Perhaps StreetSign finds some other conspiracy to start advocating, and then we can always come back and give them a stricter restriction. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Picking one of the multiple suggested remedies isn't a supervote. I support enacting the remedy described by Floquenbeam, and WP:ROPE certainly applies -- especially if the topic ban notice contains a clear explanation of what kinds of behavior will result in the topic ban being broadened or turned into a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Floq, if you haven't caught it, their "thing" is murders connected with presidents, which I imagine is why they are so persistent and frustrated at Seth Rich. "George H.W. Bush" is mentioned three times in Draft:Murder of Dr. Mark Hausknecht; once would be plenty. The murder had nothing to do with the president but about the shooter's mother. Just like what StreetSign is doing has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: That is more seeing monsters under the bed. Most of the sources mentioned that Dr. Mark Hausknecht was George H.W. Bush's doctor. ""Surveillance images show gunman behind George H.W. Bush's former doctor moments before murder"", "'High probability' doctor who treated former President George H.W. Bush was targeted, police say", "New video, images released in slaying of President George H.W. Bush's former doctor", "Suspect identified in murder of George H.W. Bush's former doctor", I was quoting them. That was my first attempt ever to write an article from scratch, and it was clumsy. You guys are just ruthless. I have done absolutely nothing to deserve this. StreetSign (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Your editing solely in an area that has discretionary sanctions for a reason. Not the easist place to learn WP policy. I may be against your topic ban, but that doesn’t mean you have done everything correctly merely that I don’t think it rises to that level yet. -Obsidi (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Refdesk vandal

Hi, the refdesk vandal is active again (Wikipedia:Reference_desk subpages). Can someone clean it up? Thanks, Henry^Flower 09:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

All reverted ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The vandal (bot?) somehow managed to reach autoconfirmed status before this latest spree. Do we need to increase the protection level of the Refdesks? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty obvious this ongoing disruption is not being solved. It would be a good idea to prevent the same user posting material more than once per minute or two as well. Just fix that up for us, it's destroying my watchlist all this nonsense, particularly when admins don't work Sundays.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am upgrading to extended confirmed, help will be appreciated,. I hope though that they are going to exhaust all the extended confirmed socks soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like they did, pls post here if disruption reappears.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

They had one more ec sock, and six of the subpages have been extended-confirmed protected for 4 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm a little out of practice with this sort of thing. Henry^Flower 09:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

A similar pattern of vandalism has occured at various Village Pump pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Zzuuzz, might have something to add. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Some significant differences, not convinced, says I. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't answer this if it reveals too much, but are we talking about more outing attacks on a particular editor? Or is this something new? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

He's vandalizing the Help Desk and Teahouse too. He is really overwhelming our anti-vandalism network. funplussmart (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Really? In all my years here, overwhelming the anti-vandalism network is something I've never heard of being possible, much less having happened.  Swarm  talk  20:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Particularly vitriolic LTAs consistently attempt to do so. I remember when JarlaxleArtemis was more active as his "Grawp" persona that he constantly attempted to recruit 4chan members to hassle random articles, specifically to try and overwhelm us; fewer and fewer people actually took him up on his offer, however. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I read the LTA page on JarlaxleArtemis. It seems to be a very similar situation here: Use of proxies, posting of personal infromation, repeated attacks. funplussmart (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean that this vandalism is forcing us to protect pages (like the Ref Desk and Help Desk) that anons and new users have a need to edit. And so far he has managed to get around edit filters and all other means to stop this. Page Protection is a last resort in many cases, and this guy has forced to 30-500 several essential pages for inexperienced users at this point. I mean we can stop the disruption from this specific vandal, but only if we take actions that cause a lot of collateral damage. I hope that this guy will get tired of this soon, but so far he has shown no signs of stopping. funplussmart (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon Yes, it's the same. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Association of Malayalam Movie Artists

The tone of this article is disputed. A single-purpose user is continuously adding daily news reports under the section controversies, like Wikipedia is a newspaper. Recently an administrator removed many of it, but the user is repeatedly adding news additions per more recent news (comments, opinions, petty points etc). Content added is also one sided and read like an attack page. It is to be noted AMMA is a non-profit charity organisation giving monthly pensions and other donations for social causes, but the article is not written like that and is more into criticism. Women in Cinema Collective is an organization with issues with said organisation. But the same user has written WCC article with a more positive tone (they have also received criticism) and is promotional to some extent with puffery, peacock terms, and non neutral writing. 2405:204:D18B:61C1:E912:258:3EE0:8269 (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oh that one again? Drmies (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• The work of that editor, Putput23, needs BLP scrutiny, but stating that is all I can do right now. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
• I notifed the editor in question of this discussion. They are adding unsourced contentious content, some of which I just removed per WP:BLP. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at reza shah

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

---

hi, how can LissanX be prevented from editing the reza shah article with some poor sources and even misrepresent these sources ? he has reverted five times 3 editors today, me included. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

he just reverted again, pfff... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AF8:4700:B240:1:0:0:4F7 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Trouble at Talk:Kiev

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

---

If any administrator would care to serve as meditator vis-a-vis a current dispute over an RM at Talk:Kiev, it would be appreciated. Look at the edit history, and you'll see what I mean. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Given the demand for a non-participant to close it, and given the obviously correct close by TaivoLinguist, I've just replaced his signature with mine in the close statement. WP:BURO, this obviously isn't necessary (the demand says while I do not see consensus to move, so what's the point?), but hopefully it will silence the complaint; if not, it will be time for WP:RBI. Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism reported by 67.70.247.171

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

---

I've just spotted a lot of vandalism. it might be good if someone can block the idiot doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.247.171 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Name the articles, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if it's related to this, Cullen. Otherwise, I have no idea. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies

Earlier was a false alarm, the vandals have already been blocked. Sorry also for blanking the entire page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.247.171 (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Supervision requested at WP:BLPN

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

---

WP:BLPN usually works pretty well, but Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Milo_Yiannopoulos is getting a bit testy. I think it would help if a few admins would simply make their presence known. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Boris. I warned the editor. A block would have been justified as well, I know. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: While I don't disagree with the original action, I would suggest a block now. The editor is claiming they seriously believed the blocked socks with offensive names that User:MjolnirPants mentioned on their user page as something they are proud of were created by User:MjolnirPants and that they count as self identification as a communist (and I presume all the other things I mentioned on their talk page which I won't repeat here). This was after they made some lame comments in response to my use of the singular they. Maybe they were once a good editor, but it seems they are clearly just trolling now. Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Oh I realised because of the way this thread was started, DigbyDalton was never given notification. I've done so now. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: seconding Nil Einne. ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• P.S. Yes we are referring to the same socks for which MjolnirPants says amongst other things "I didn't even know they existed until I tried to look myself up on an off-wiki tool and these popped up as suggestions" Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Alex Shih blocked the OP (of the thread in question, not this thread) for 48 hours for "blatant trolling comments". I'm not doing an NAC because I'm certainly involved, and because I suspect this will resume in 48 hours, and this is as good a thread as any. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you Alex. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threats from User:Nocturnaldazeband

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

---

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

See edit summaries. PamD 07:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked, and semi-protected the page for a little bit as the same threat is coming from different accounts. Alex Shih (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Threat? Strange edits and edit summaries on Edit filter request archive

• Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The latest three edits, a removal by an anon, a revert by L293D (talk · contribs), and a removal by an anon.

• The latest ES removing content was: Undid revision 865204250 by L293D (talk) Removing vandalism. Adding another user into criminal suspect accomplices list #893
• Previous ES removing content was: The users implicated in the deletion of content of this subject, evidenced to be involved in assisting suspects performing credit frauds, illegal hacking activities, criminal offenses and infractions. INTERPOL has been notified. International law enforcement agencies will be performing surveillance upon these users, according to international treaties. #45275867700ACA

The latest edit geolocated to Hong Kong, the previous to Singapore. Jim1138 (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some drama about this a while ago in the ANI archives. Looks like a sockfarm that performed similarly ridiculous legal threats got rooted out and blocked. I blocked the latest IP and semi-protected the archive, which should take care of it for now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Santanu99: persistent disruptive editing, and obvious lack of competence

Santanu99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The reported user, whose main activity here is scr*wing up articles about Indian institutions of higher learning, should be shown the door ASAP, and not just for a short period of time, but for good, for being a huge time sink, and a net negative for the project. Their talk page is full of warnings for uploading non-free images, making copyright violations (adding copyrighted text found elsewhere; see revdelled entries in their contributions, and recent multiple warnings on their talk page), making repeated cut-and-paste moves of articles, making repeated attempts to redirect an article to another article that only covers a subset of what the article they're redirecting to it covers (see page history here) and repeatedly adding unsourced material to a large number of articles. It's also obvious that they don't know enough English to be able to read and understand the warnings they get, or communicate with others, with their response to getting a final warning for disruptive editing after their latest attempt to redirect Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology to Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur (their second such attempt today, showing they just won't stop...) being this post on their talk page: "GOTO Hell, Lets Try..You have no idea.Wikipedia Foundation will loose fund.", which IMHO proves my point about utter lack of competence. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Tom, your quote ""GOTO Hell" etc has the wrong diff, could you fix, please? I'd like to read the post, even though it may be kind of moot, as I've indeffed. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC).

Sorry, Bishonen, too many windows open in the browser at the same time. The diff is here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes (brought he from their talk, having just left a message there and seen an absolute kaleidoscope of warnings). I see some of them relate to the addition of copyright material; that's what took me there, as I stripped a load out of Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, which they have proceeded to restore. I wonder how many wasted editorial hours they have managed to consume in the last five years. ——SerialNumber54129 14:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The account was registered five years ago, but only made stray edits until early July this year, that is less than four months ago, but have since accumulated about 1,000 edits here, very few of them really constructive. A look at their earliest edits, from 2014 and 2015, is interesting too, though, since several of their earliest edits have been revdelled, including their very first ones, making it seem like they've been regularly adding copyvios here, from their very first day of editing here and up to today. Kazi Nazrul University, which they added now revdelled copyvios on a couple of days ago, was also the very first article they edited, with now revdelled edits made by them on that article also in 2014 and 2015, showing they haven't learnt anything during the past several years. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: You might want to— ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• This has to be the most stupid attempt at socking that I've ever seen, creating a new account named User:Santanu98 and then using Santana99 to redirect Santana99's talk page to the newly created sock... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Santanu98 also now blocked. GiantSnowman 16:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• It wasn't registered? They just tried to redirect their talk to a non-existant page. Which does just about sum it up admittedly. Ah, TW's dodgy spelling there :) yes, that was a rather foolish manoeuvre, wasn't it. ——SerialNumber54129 16:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Err yes it was - "Created on 23 October 2018 at 12:46" ... GiantSnowman 16:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Possibly excessive number of PROD nominations by a user on 22 October 2018

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

---

I would suggest the raising of at least 32 PROD nominations on 22 October 2018 Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Article alerts by Piotrus is an excessive number. The raising of that number means insufficient consideration is likely to be given to merge or other improvements. Such nominations are almost effortless to raise at a production scale with a vanilla summary of: The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you. Now the articles raised by Piotrus pretty well all have serious sourcing issues from the article as far as I can see, and a (very?) high proportion are typically for the bin. That said all are a seem to be ... do we check his judgement ... ?. However seemingly obvious merges such at Oracle Office into Oracle Collaboration Suite (and even on to Oracle Beehive) seem to be missed; and I understand it is the onus on prod nominator per WP:PRODNOM to identify these. Someone has already redirected X.29. Other issues are templating a long standing article prior to PROD nomination so it can be improved outside of the deletion process such as at Multi-Purpose Viewer, although this may be a pedantic example as there was already an existing relevant template, albeit no immediate warning of deletion. Prods are supposed to be be non-controversial ... at least some here clearly are not. Perhaps my main concern here is the precedent it sets with large swathes of deletions being raised at once being potentially and actually disruptive. I therefore challenge this level and rate of PROD raising by one person as an incident. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You left a note at User talk:Piotrus a few hours ago, and the editor hasn't edited since then. You are allowed to remove Prods you disagree with. In general, please only raise issues here if either discussion with the editor doesn't get the desired result, or the situation is truly urgent and needs immediate admin intervention. This situation though is neither of those, and bringing it here is premature. Fram (talk) 12:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(watching) First things first, Djm-leighpark: It's good, of course, that you raised your concern on his talkpage; but that was at 09:53. They haven't edited for seven hours, though and are clearly offline; so you thought waiting ~2 hours and then escalating to ANI was the best thing to do? Since they're PRODS, we do have, at least, 168 hours to deal with the matter in. All IMHO of course. ——SerialNumber54129 12:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• in this case yes because of the precedent of the case. The issue is more about this sort of event happening than it is the individual user. I am raising an incident about what has happened not the individual user. I am now involved in trying to work through the PRODs raised. While it can be a simple matter of dePROD in fact before doing so and to avoid an immediate drag to AfD it is best to consider merges first. This takes effort. To some degree any response by Piotrus is fairly independent of bringing the matter here. And a similar but in many ways different event occurred last month. And I may I Wikibreak at any point. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Accusing someone of being productive? Even the ones you point out above seem to be reasonable PRODs - and spot-checking a few others (I didn't do all 32) you did not mention - they also seem reasonable. It's one thing to complain when a user do multiple bad noms - in particular after being called out in previous articles (e.g. - poor AfD judgement). But raising a behavioral issue at AN/I not due to quality but merely volume? Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There has been nothing I have said in that majority of nominations will not be correct. Indeed I have indicated most will have serious sourcing issues. This is a different mass nomination than last months 40 or or so AfD/PROD ... I'd suspect here we may have 5%-10% and (maybe 20% outside tops) that are candidates for merge/redirect and maybe 1 or 2 (if that) worthy of a WP:RESCUE. The issue with this bulkage of PROD nominations the number we are looking for near total accuracy or one nominator can call dispropionate disruption to those trying to fix things that have stood, sometimes unchallenged for a decade. As it happens working through the list Amazon StoryWriter might (only might) be a salvage ... but the current sourcing is not good. Being productive in removing content is not good ... however there is a counter argument removing bad content improves quality. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything that admins need to take care of here. If you feel any of the articles shouldn't be deleted DePROD them. You are under no obligation to do it in the manner requested, though it would be a courtesy to do so. If after going through the PRODs a high % of them are obviously articles that should be kept and they don't try to resolve it then there may be admin action. At this point this should be closed down and let the PROD process work and talk page discussion work. ~ GB fan 12:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Effort working through them means the number of imperfect nominations is important given the number nominated. And at what point does this get unmanagable 100/day ... 200/day ... ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

What admin response do you want from this? ~ GB fan 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Doctor Who (series 11)

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

---

Can anyone support me at this article, please? The editor keeps implementing a BRD edit. Matt14451 12:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and needs to be discussed on the article talk page. ~ GB fan 12:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I know, the established version should be in the article until a consensus has been reached, I have only reverted to consensus. Matt14451 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451:If you're waiting on consensus you can't be reverting to consensus. You've been reverted by two editors. Please stop reverting. Tiderolls 13:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to the established version of the article, not one that has been introduced today. See bold. Matt14451 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

That's kinda the definition of a content dispute, as GBfan has posted. But I see you've stopped reverting so we should be good here. Tiderolls 13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I will revert again. The established version of an article should be in place until a consensus is reached. I reverted before a 2nd user contributed so consensus couldn't be assumed. User has a history of a hostile and aggressive attitude, couldn't find where to report him though. Matt14451 (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: This is textbook WP:CANVAS. There are now more editors re-adding and editing the table - you have been told by two uninvolved editors here that you no longer have the consensus, and the discussion was closed by a third. -- Alex^TW 13:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You reverted me before any other editor got involved., what's your excuse for that? What about your hostile and aggressive attitude? Matt14451 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You have three editors here and two more (bar me) at the article opposing you. Please read WP:IDHT. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 13:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

FWIW, I suspect this might not have been a content dispute, given that the topic area is highly divisive/explosive, prone to edit-warring and uncivil behaviour (see, e.g., this simple technical request for an article move in order to fully disambiguate its title, which quickly devolved into blatant trolling/harassment), and so "Hey, can someone help me here" might look like forum-shopping a content dispute to ANI or even canvassing while actually being a good-faith request for assistance with a user conduct issue, and so I suspect this may have been closed prematurely, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to second that opinion. It may very well be that the OP is not listening to consensus on the talk page and that his request here represents an ongoing case of IDHT, but from the way the request is framed, that is --not-- a content dispute; if someone is edit warring against the stable version of an article against the clear requirements of WP:BRD, then that is very much a conduct issue, not a content dispute, and it's entirely appropriate for an involved editor to bring the matter to a noticeboard to get an admin's impression (that said, we have an entire board for such requests--WP:ANEW--where this should have been brought). Though I'm sure that SerialNumber's close was a good-faith action, and clearly predicated in the previous comments from other uninvolved editors, I nevertheless feel that it is actually rather inappropriate for an non-admin to do a procedural close for this sort of discussion on a administrative board, where there is an open issue involving edit warring and an admin has not yet evaluated the situation. I'm actually quite tempted to re-open this; I believe the OP deserves to have the substance of their concerns addressed; if they are accurately describing the sequence of edits and the status of consensus, that is a violation of WP:BRD. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, from what I can tell from studying the edit history and the talk page discussion, the OP did have legitimate policy reason for requesting administrative review of the edits at the time that he made his request here. And I do think the NA closure was a bit premature, especially given how quickly it proceeded. That said, Alex has now clearly achieved a consensus on the talk page, so it's now a WP:SNOW matter and there is no purpose to re-opening this discussion to discuss putting a moratorium on further changes. If Matt54129 is dissatisfied with this result and wishes broader community input, he should consider an RfC. That said, I'll be frank that I'm not sure the difference in content between the two proposals warrants that much expenditure of community effort and I would respectfully submit to Matt that this might be a good opportunity to demonstrate ability to let the small stuff go, a trait that I for one believe buys an editor respect in this particular work community. But then again, I may have to own up to a value bias of finding all things Doctor Who exceedingly tedious (present editors who borrow their names from the show excluded, Alex!). Snow ^{let's rap} 01:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping when I was being talked about... One revert is barely edit-warring, especially when Matt14451 (rather than Matt54129) is an editor who actually violated WP:3RR on the article by reverting four times within 24 hours ([84][85][86][87]), and then even declared that they were planning to revert yet again![88] But when another editor has the consensus, they clearly think it's best to continue opposing (which is fine) but without a reason?[89] The editor further claims optional essays as policy, and when they do quote policy, they invent sections of it and cannot provide a direct quote and clear their talk page when confronted with this - I think this has happened about three times now... (I'd need to do more history-digging to be sure.) Let's not talk about the talk pages linked, where they gained matching views on what should not be done, and then believing that they can do ahead and do the same edits elsewhere. Now, can anyone tell me if any of this was actual vandalism or not?

As for the content itself... The edit summary for the first revert was Seems like it could be too much detail. Not a fan of the coloured header. Seems like? What does that mean? Is that what you personally think, or is it WP:OWNBEHAVIOR #4, where an editor editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit, and then continuing such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale, which is a strong indicator of ownership behavior? In my revert, I even fixed the "apparent" second issue based on the colour (even though it seemed more like IDONTLIKEIT). I could think that this discussion was started with the intent to gain administrative help with their issue with me, but when they began it as Can anyone support me at this article, please?, I'm inclined to think not. "Support me"? At this "article", not this "talk page"? No, they came here to gain editors to come over and say "I agree with you, Matt", and that's much less "Hey, can someone help me here" and much more canvassing and shopping.

As for harassment, let's not talk about the editor who suddenly appears almost every time that I (or other particular editors) have to respond to a thread at an AN, solely to oppose me (I've lost count on the number this time), and then reopens a thread that was closed twice[90] instead of opening a new thread as they should have done. (And thanks for that last bit Snow Rise, this is actually why I've debated on getting a name change due to other editors making comments on my edits, based solely on my name). -- Alex^TW 06:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Scriptions

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

---

• Scriptions (talk · contribs)
• {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}}
• Template:Infobox Chinese/doc

The user sabotaged the template Special:Diff/754773886 to make {{Infobox Chinese}} not working. Which is, when |y= |j= data were filled, using |showflag=j, which was intended to display |j= data from hidden, came up with |y= data was shown from hidden instead. Also |showflag=pj came up with the same result with |showflag=py, display pinyin and Cantonese Yale.

I don't understand his jarbish of reverting my good faith edit on Template:Infobox Chinese/doc (edit summary: not a typo), which @Kanguole: was endorse it seem wrong in Template talk:Infobox Chinese#Showflag broken. As well as his explanation in Template talk:Infobox Chinese#Showflag broken.

All i could say it just seem he just want to vandal the template in order to display his favourite Yale , instead of respecting other user on the input in |showflag=.

Matthew_hk tc 13:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a nerve accusing me of vandalism after I've explained exactly how my edits were in good faith. As I've explained, I made the edits favouring Yale because of the objective reason to favour it, not because it's my favourite. Changing what a showflag does has the exact same result as changing every instance of said showflag to another showflag, and as the latter is obviously legitimate, so is the former. Scriptions (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Apart from any of the issues being raised here, that diffs is from December 2016. More recent diffs and evidence will need to be provided if you wish to substantiate your complaint and for your complaint to be considered by other editors and administrators.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scriptions: Before you sabotage. The Previous version such as Special:Diff/752982678 jyp, j and other |showflag= option is worked as intended. It just pure vandalism to permanently disable |j= (Jyutping) data to trigger by |showflag=j for your promotional to Yale. Matthew_hk tc 13:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Here is the diff for sabotage in the doc (Special:Diff/754824417), and the recent revert claiming not a typo: Special:Diff/865250513 and Special:Diff/865250565. Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every edit you strongly disagree with is sabotage and vandalism. These edits are perfectly legitimate, as I've already explained in detail. Scriptions (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Not every edit is sabotage or vandalism, but would you care to explain why you replaced a Hong Kong developed transliteration of Cantonese with an American transliteration of Mandarin? It does seem a little odd considering that Yale and Jyutping were designed for different dialects with vastly divergent pronunciation. Also Yale is rather archaic compared to Jyutping. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Yale for mandarin and Yale for Cantonese are two things. In {{lang-zh}} Yale for Cantonese use |cy= but in {{Infobox Chinese}} use |y= only. Matthew_hk tc 13:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I replaced it with Yale for Cantonese, not Yale for Mandarin! The reason was that Yale is more common than Jyutping in learning materials and therefore better known by non-native speakers of Cantonese, who are the ones who need the transcriptions. If one Cantonese transcription is to be shown outside of the hide area, it should be the one that the most readers will understand. Scriptions (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you Matthew, I was not aware that there was a separate Yale romanization for Cantonese. That resolves some of my concerns here; but I still do prefer to use a more modern transliteration developed in Hong Kong over an American one. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Transcriptions exist to effectively communicate pronunciations, not to represent Hong Kong or the US. A transcription system being more common is relevant; a transcription system being more recent is not. Scriptions (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It should respect the free choice of display by input in |showflag=y and |showflag=j. Not sabotage the template to make an illusion on |showflag=y and |showflag=j, which came up with the same result. It just need to add another line of code in {{Infobox Chinese/Chinese}} for |y= if it was not exist before 2016. But you did add lines of code for showing |y= but also sabotage the display code for |j=. Matthew_hk tc 13:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well It seem you just sabotage every code linked to display |j= data to display |y= instead. The true |showflag=y code was added by Littlepenny413 Special:Diff/773048904. Matthew_hk tc 14:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not sabotage; it's called being efficient. There was no illusion created: the doc page said the same thing as the code (until you decided to screw up the doc page, that is). Not respecting another editor's choice on which transcription to show by changing the definition of the showflag is no less legitimate than not respecting it by replacing their showflag with another showflag. By your standards, any edit would constitute not respecting other editors. Scriptions (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

The correct way not to be disruptive editing, is . If a template had |a= to say |y=. You added |z=, may be fine given some discussion in the template talk (or just bold). Adding new line of code to display new data |z= from collapsible list of the template , also fine, but not sabotage the code so that |show=a to |show=z are the same, showing data z from collapsible list.

And this you what you did in the infobox and the corresponding doc. Matthew_hk tc 14:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

Ad hominem at homonym

Please fill this space with a relevant humorous image of your choice. BMK (Sorry, trout was trite) BMK

Add hominid at "Ad hominem at homonym", at home with them

Homina, homina, homina

Hominy, hominy, hominy

Hominy home

Harmony, harmony, harmony

Homily, homily
homily

Did someone say tripe?

[91]. EEng 18:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

An ad homonym? erm, no, what I meant to say is: We are very busy here doing very important things. We have no time for frivolity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Eeng. Look at the thread above this one and ask yourself if we really have time for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I saw this pop up, my question was going to be "Really? Did Eeng put you up to this? Otta known I have plenty of time for frivolity, and maybe some fishing...-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Damn you EEng! Damn you. We don't have time for this. We. Don't. Have. TIME. This post has wasted precious volunteer resources, and frankly, I'm not sure how long it will take to recover. Every minute people spend here, precious, precious work is being done, and you have stolen that from us. Propose BOOMERANG TBAN on the use of any and all humor, broadly construed.  Swarm  talk  19:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, this is kind of a reminder to close this thread. I've outdone EEng with puns on this one. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is succeeding beyond my wildest imagining. EEng 21:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Your imagination is obviously deficient, so sad, so sad. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A mind is a terrible thing to... wait, what are we talking about again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

???????????????💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 01:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As one of the late 20th century's greatest philosophers put it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

What's this about hominy? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I hereby block the electrical engineer for a microsecond. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE Block Requested

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

---

User:Ceneezer has created several incomprehensible drafts (Draft:Ceneezer and Draft:Omniverse Theory). He is not responding well to efforts to delete them [92]] claiming this nonsense is his life. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This is an odd case. Special:Contributions/Ceneezer shows what look to be constructive contributions in late 2016, then a 1.5-2 year gap that ended with a flood of nonsense. Compromised account? A four-quadruple-screwdriver night? Hmm. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Note however that even those half-dozen useful edits a year and half back were actually a POVFORK of an article that already existed, so I would describe them more as apparently good-faith than necesarily constructive. And given those six edits were the only ones that were even in the ballpark of being WP:HERE, I'm inclined to agree with the suggesting course of action; an admin warning would be a nice first stop, but if this user doesn't stop this quasi-vandalism, a block is the best way forward. And frankly, though I'd like to see the warning so that we are being pro forma about this, I don't have much hope that this user is suddenly going to change gear into a useful contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Not getting the message [93] Legacypac (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• User indeffed. Pages deleted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

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