Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex Shih (talk | contribs) at 14:08, 5 September 2017 (→‎User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP: closing the discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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:Zoyetu and WP:BLP

    TOPIC BANNED
    There doesn't seem to be enough recent disruption nor consensus in this survey to suggest that it would be preventative now to implement a block on the editor in question. With that being said, as the final warning issued by SuperMarioMan maintains to be active and relevant, any next edits perceived as disruptive should result in immediate block. The participation in proposal 2 is also less than optimal, but combined with the comments and evidences presented, it should be sufficient to declare that Zoyetu has now been indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to to biographies of living persons based on the consensus of this community discussion. This editing restriction will be logged shortly. Alex ShihTalk 14:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    (This is in response to a ping by Softlavender and follows up a final warning that I issued in February last year.)

    WP:BLP requires that the articles to which it applies be written "conservatively" and avoid sensationalism. In nearly two years of editing, Zoyetu (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated this instruction.

    This recent addition to Peter Levy (presenter), now removed, was problematic for obvious reasons: its dependence on primary sources taken out of context plus the use of non-neutral language to cast the subject of the article in a negative light. Zoyetu even went so far as to upload a screenshot of a deleted Tweet as a "reference".

    This isn't an isolated case. Zoyetu first came to my attention in 2015 through their activity on the Chuckle Brothers article, when they made poorly-sourced and opinionated edits like this, this and (ridiculously) this. Despite being informed of the requirements for WP:BLP not long after they started editing ([1]; [2]), from their behaviour on the Levy article it's clear that Zoyetu still doesn't understand even the basics of this policy.

    What's the solution? Having reverted this user I could be considered involved and am therefore reluctant to impose a block. What would others say to an indefinite topic ban from all BLPs? SuperMarioMan–Talk 21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I am writing in response to accusations made by both Softlavender (talk · contribs) and SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) that I have violated the rules with regards to some of my edits.
    Firstly, I would like to apologise for these and address the points (and references) made by SuperMarioMan regarding some of my earlier edits to the Chuckle Brothers page. When these edits were first made in late-2015, I was new to Wikipedia and therefore I was unaware of the rules in place. I appreciate that some of the edits that I had made could be considered as sensationalist, and I have since recognised this. I was unaware as to which types of media sources would be considered acceptable (i.e. tabloid, broadsheet, etc.) and I have since made edits to the same page which have been accepted with no issue. I am working on improving the way in which I edit pages and since late-2015 I have created and edited a number of Wikipedia pages that I believe have benefited the website as a whole.
    Regarding this latest issue relating to the Peter Levy page, I appreciate that the aforementioned paragraph could be conisdered controversial, however I was unaware that "Tweets" could not be used as the sole reference within articles, particularly when the Tweets in question were posted by an account owned by the individual which the page is about. Furthermore, prior to posting the Tweet and editing the article, I had made great efforts to seek the advice of a number of Administrators (see: here and here) about whether the referencing, which I appreciate was somewhat unorthodox, would be accepted. The advice I received however was rather unclear on the matter and as such I was unsure as to how to proceed. Looking back, I recognise that I should not have posted the paragraph in question, however at the time I felt that any edit that I would potentially make could easily be reverted and therefore for this reason I decided to post the paragraph in question. Admittedly I had neglected to consult the relevant page referenced by Softlavender prior to posting the edit to the page, which I recognise was lax of me. It certainly was not my intention to cause any offence or problems, and had I of known that posting this would have done I would obviously have not have done so.
    There are potentially other reasons why I feel that a block should not be imposed on my person, however I am not prepared to go into these on a public forum. If you wish to discuss this privately, I would be happy to do so.
    Thank you for your understanding.
    --Zoyetu (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Private evidence in this case would not be applicable. I suggest you present all evidence publicly. --Tarage (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Zoyetu's knowledge of our general sourcing standards, especially in regard to BLPs, leaves a lot to be desired. Here are some other examples that I found among their recent edits (I have since reverted):
    They have also demonstrated a clear agenda – apparently motivated by what they perceive to be in the "public interest" – in edits such as [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] (see the edit summary) and [11] (again, see the summary).
    This behaviour spans nearly two years. SuperMarioMan–Talk 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) I would like to address the 'contributions' that you have outlined one by one. With regards to the minor television appearances by both Damon Hill and Graham Hill, you suggest that the BBC Genome is a user-edited website, however I would argue that it is a bit more than that. According to the website, it contains the BBC listings information which the BBC printed in Radio Times between 1923 and 2009. See here. Again, regarding the Patton Brothers page, I accept your point about using YouTube as a reference, however I did this as I could not find a proper reference (due to the age of the material) but I wanted to be sure that the information could be included. I can also confirm that the Erik Ramsey listed on that webpage and the one listed on the website are the same individuals (here's another website showing the same individual), however as I have already suggested I feel as though I am being unfairly targetted by users who clearly have a vendetta against me, so I doubt what I say will be considered fairly regardless. --Zoyetu (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the fact that any Internet user can edit the Genome site (see the subheading "Join in" in your link above as well as the "edit" buttons in the link I gave) makes it unreliable for encyclopaedic purposes (as we do not know which information has been fact-checked and which has not). See WP:USERGENERATED. And what makes Tributes.com a reliable source? SuperMarioMan–Talk 15:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Block

    Zoyeto had received numerous and repeated warnings on his talkpage (including a final warning [12] which stated "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page") between October 2015 and February 2016 about exactly this behavior [13], and knew exactly what he was doing creating a trumped-up WP:OR/WP:SYNTH BLP-vio cited only to the subject (including an image Zoyetu uploaded of a supposedly deleted tweet -- possibly even faked as tweets can easily be faked). Since Zoyetu appears to have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies, and has repeatedly deliberately flouted them, I suggest a block is the appropriate action here, as the community does not have the manpower to babysit one editor's actions. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry Softlavender (talk · contribs) but I must refute your allegations that the paragraph that I had posted was 'trumped-up' and that I had 'possibly faked the tweet'. This is completely untrue and I would not knowingly post untrue information onto a Wikipedia page. The tweet itself is completely valid and was, up until at least May 2014, still present on the user's profile. Also, I find your suggestions that I have 'no intentions of abiding by Wikipedia's policies' and that I have 'deliberately flouted' them with little regard for the website also to be potentially libellous. I have created and edited many articles since February 2016 that I feel have benefited the website as a whole. It seems to me that you have a 'bee in your bonnet' with regards to my activities on Wikipedia, and I feel as though I am being unfairly targetted by yourself on the website for what I would suggest was a mistake. I have already apologised for any offence caused by the posting of the paragraph on the aforementioned page, and I am unsure as to what else I can do. I would suggest that a complete block is rather harsh for what has occurrred, especially as the warning in question was over a year and a half ago. --Zoyetu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too late for these blythe apologies, Zoyetu; you had been warned far more than was lenient already on your talk page [14], [15], [16], [17], and were aware that breaching BLP policies again would result in a block and/or topic ban. As SuperMarioMan notes in his OP, "They have ... demonstrated a clear agenda" and "This behaviour spans nearly two years." Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony overload of Zoyetu's accusation of libel is near-fatal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: Topic ban from BLPs

    Zoyeto's final warning from SuperMarioMan in February 2016 also entailed this sanction if he persisted in his poorly sourced BLP-vios: [18]. And yet he persisted, posting that trumped-up self-cited BLP-violating nonsense on Peter Levy just this month: [19]. (There's also no telling how many other articles he has done this to between February 2016 and now.) So it's time to enact the sanction clearly indicated in the final warning, to prevent further BLP-vios. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, I suggest that I am being unfairly targetted with regards to a single edit that I had made on the aforementioned page. You state that 'there's also no telling how many other articles he (you suggest that I am male) has done this to', however clearly there are none as I am sure that other Editors and Administrators would have picked up on it. One Administrator who is aware of my edits is Keith D (talk · contribs) (he is currently away until the 3 September 2017) and I am sure he can vouch for them since February 2016. --Zoyetu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too late for these blythe apologies, Zoyetu; you had been warned far more than was lenient already on your talk page [20], [21], [22], [23], and were aware that breaching BLP policies again would result in a block and/or topic ban. As SuperMarioMan notes in his OP, "They have ... demonstrated a clear agenda" and "This behaviour spans nearly two years." Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You both Softlavender (talk · contribs) SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) talk about an 'agenda' but fail to outline what this agenda is. Please could you clarify this for me, thank you. --Zoyetu (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "agenda" is you seeming to cast yourself as a moral judge in comments like this, which leads you to make biased, innuendo-driven article edits like this and this. Reading through the Levy diff I'm staggered that you considered it a constructive addition to the article. What point were you trying to make? SuperMarioMan–Talk 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Here is the material Zoyetu added to the Peter Levy article, clearly designed to incriminate Levy by closely associating him with notorious longterm pedophile Jimmy Savile:

    From 10 November 2008, he took over the Soapbox slot on BBC Radio Humberside from Blair Jacobs, with a programme from 12 – 2 p.m. called The Peter Levy Show.[1] At 1.55 p.m. each programme, he chatted to Paul Hudson.[2]

    The programme was also broadcast on BBC Radio Lincolnshire and finished in August 2014.

    Shortly after the death of the now disgraced presenter Jimmy Savile in October 2011, Levy posted a message on Twitter stating that he was 'gutted' and that he had last seen him only six weeks prior to his death. He went onto describe him as a 'genuine guy'.[3] The post has since been removed. Prior to this Levy had interviewed Savile on his radio show in March 2011.[4] Following the damning revelations surrounding Savile in October 2012, Levy presented a number of radio programmes about the late DJ,[5][6][7] including one in which he spoke with Mark Williams-Thomas, the investigative journalist who initially examined claims of child sexual abuse by Savile, leading to widespread media coverage.[8]

    References

    1. ^ "Humber - BBC Radio Humberside - The Peter Levy Show". BBC. 26 November 2008. Retrieved 4 June 2015.
    2. ^ "Riding the (air) waves!". Hull Daily Mail. 29 January 2009. Retrieved 16 September 2011.
    3. ^ Levy, Peter (2011-10-29). "File:Peter Levy Tweet 29-10-11.jpg". Wikipedia. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
    4. ^ Levy, Peter (2011-03-31). "I will be talking to Sir Jimmy Savile". @peter_levy. Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    5. ^ Levy, Peter (2012-10-04). "Very powerful talk on child abuse and Sir Jimmy Savile allegations on the radio at 12. Join me if you can". @peter_levy. Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    6. ^ Levy, Peter (2012-10-07). "Good morning today on the radio a story from a woman on the Jimmy Savile story that you don't want to miss. Radio Humb + radio Lincs from 12". @peter_levy. Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    7. ^ Levy, Peter (2012-10-09). "Should maternity leave be scrapped? Also ex editor of Sunday Mirror tells me how the Savile story nearly came out 18 years ago. Radio at 12". @peter_levy. Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    8. ^ Levy, Peter (2012-10-03). "Tomorrow on the radio @mwilliamsthomas who made tonights explosive programme about Sir Jimmy Savile talking to me live at 12 30 don't miss". @peter_levy. Archived from the original on 2017-08-12. Retrieved 2017-08-12. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

    -- Softlavender (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite topic ban. Zoyetu's recent actions, combined with their statements here, demonstrate some very large gaps in their policy knowledge and suggest to me that they need to stay well clear of this area. SuperMarioMan–Talk 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add that I do think blocking would be excessive, as Zoyetu does appear to have edited constructively in other places. It's their contributions to BLPs that are a cause for concern. SuperMarioMan–Talk 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support User seems unable to abide by BLP or understand it. I'm not sure which is worse. --Tarage (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment: Note that Zoyetu deleted the quoted material above four minutes after I posted it: [24]. Clearly this is both an admission of guilt and yet another indication that this user is WP:NOTHERE and at this point is merely trolling. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor is still putting in BLP-vios into articles: This claim just added that the subject was fired from The Simpsons "with suggestions that the reasons behind the decision were largely financial" [25] is not supported by the citations and also does not mention the stated reason for his dismissal: [26]. The citation also does not substantiate the claim that "His last complete score was for the season finale of Season 28"; in fact, the citation is the wrong citation altogether; the proper citation should be the Variety article which the AV Club citation cites. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC); edited 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The Variety article was cited together with the AV Club article, which states: Clausen’s last complete score for the series was for the season finale of Season 28, which aired in May. See here. --Zoyetu (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the AV Club citation you posted most clearly does not state that: [27]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The quotation was cited in the Variety article, which I had cited alongside the AV Club article. --Zoyetu (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct; my oversight and so stricken. My other points stand. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Need administrative review/closure here

    This thread, which was opened by an administrator, got bot-archived without additional administrative review or close. It has some proposals that have been commented and !voted on, including by administrators, but the surveys have not been formally reviewed and closed. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies

    A person appears to be using open proxies to rapidly vandalize numerous times. Some of the IPs include:

    Edit summaries are often "copyedit", "minor fixes", "fixed typo", "fixed grammar"
    All have been blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also 109.98.171.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) DuncanHill (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be better to just let the anon vandalize on one IP? Then he can be easily reverted. Jim1138 (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, because we can't guarantee you will be around to instantly revert them every time without anyone ever loading up an article in a vandalised state. You have to block to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not such a bad approach really. The only we're going to stop this vandal is through boredom. So the choice is whether to constantly undo every edit stemming from one IP, or rely on finding all the other IPs they are using. And if they're more dispersed there more chance that vandalism will remain. Ultimately though, I think the easiest way to make them bored is by reducing the pool of available IPs, even if it's going to take a lot. Speaking of which, having just blocked the last 40 or so IPs, I'm now going to take a break. Someone else can track them down. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a heck of a range of IPs - how on earth can we get a long-term solution for this lot? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just waiting for the vandals to change IPs with every edit or so. Jim1138 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, these are VPN Gate proxies - they are usually quite dynamic and there's quite a few of them. A long term solution is to find a bot or another way to scrape the IPs so they can be blocked. Their availability should get diluted if we block enough of them. This user is operating off recent changes, so if you're reverting them please also check the prior changes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did mass-rollbacks on many Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As a vague heuristic to discuss, does anyone know what proportion of anonymous edits with canned edit summaries and more than 500 bytes of change (in either direction) are good faith? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems to be a good feed, every IP on this list has been recently blocked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not entirely comprehensive. Special:Contributions/190.207.251.58 shows some of the non-canned summaries which are being used. So this feed should show them all. They're quite easy to spot. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's some more of them:

    I was at wp-en IRC reporting some of these with some help from Jon Kolbert. k6ka and TNT were very helpful in stopping them before Zzuzz took over and did an impressive amount of cleanup - TNT also created a test edit filter here: Special:AbuseFilter/1 (the recent few IP's in the log are relevant here) and then moved it to Special:AbuseFilter/684. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 13:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a dedicated filter at Special:AbuseFilter/819 that we've used in the past. I've enabled that and disbaled the temporary one. Also, you should know they are definitely reading what you're saying here. — MusikAnimal talk 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A "virtual reality" mode should be setup where a vandal such as this can be "VR blocked". Their edits would appear to be made, but unknown to the vandal, they would not be. Then the vandal would happily be working away without any damage on Wikipedia. One option might be as simple as their edit appears to be saved, although this one was occasionally reverting their own edits. Another that their edit being only visible to the vandal for a period of time minutes to hours. This would prevent the vandal from easily checking; one could use a different browser to watch. Another might be that the edit is automatically reverted after a short period of time. It would get complicated for a sophisticated vandal. Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    information Administrator note I've taken the liberty to merge the two reports, for convenience. GABgab 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm noticing an odd pattern of vandalism with 178.87.139.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 223.206.42.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 153.230.136.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): all use three-character edit summaries but none seem to evince a single pattern of vandalism; it's all over the place. Admins have been blocking these but I'm wondering if some sort of stronger response is called for. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    here is another example. A completely innocuous minor comment on a T/P of a (relatively) obscure article reverted with a strange edit summary. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris troutman: Some more information on this is right here on ANI: just scroll up till you see the section titled "Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies". That should give you some context as to what's going on. The vandalbot has already done hundreds if not thousands of edits. If you notice a similar pattern (recurring/strange edit summaries and rapid reversion of recent edits) on recent changes, rollback all of their edits and report to AIV. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is surely someone using proxies and these should be blocked for a year on sight (in fact, Zzuuzz has blocked two of them for one year, the other is blocked only for 48 hours). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reblocked the third IP for one year as a proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the "derp vandal". Someone has been running a vandalbot for days on end. It reverts recent changes at random. The IP's do seem to be proxies. Sro23 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All I've seen are undo-s of recent changes, e.g. this to RFA immediately succeeded by this to an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious if 190.79.25.143 could be this vandal as well. Materialscientist blocked for a month as LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Almost certainly is. The "derp vandal" did have an "edit summary-less" phase and looking through my contribs, it was on 31st August. There is no other way the IP could've undone an edit less than a minute after it was made without going through recent changes and that too, on such random pages. And that is precisly the MO of the "derp vandal". Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 06:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The things that turn some people on! Internet sociopathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this have anything to do with 39.115.84.173 (talk · contribs) and 14.38.169.187 (talk · contribs)? GABgab 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeneralizationsAreBad: Not just anything, but it is exactly that vandal we're talking about - rapidly reverting recent edits and having repeating/random/no edit summaries. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeat topic ban violations by Instaurare

    Instaurare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again violated his topic ban from LGBT-related articles by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion and this edit. He has previous violated this topic ban, documented here and here. At some point, this topic ban needs to grow some teeth so that Instaurare will stop violating it.- MrX 03:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised you remembered these things from 4-5 years ago, because I didn't. Instaurare (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit.- MrX 03:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Instaurare (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Instaurare: Since the AfD is heading for keep, could you kindly to not comment any further, and file an official appeal for your topic ban at WP:AN, which is still being logged in place? Alex ShihTalk 04:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed the AfD as "no action" since its initiation was improper from the start. Thought SNOW likely would have been the outcome given more time. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: Someone violates a topic ban, and, instead of enforcing it, we recommend they file an appeal? That seems... out of place. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that, considering there have been previous violations, and I don't believe that the editor has forgotten about the ban (which is irrelevant anyway), I believe a block is in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree, but for a topic ban that was placed in 2012 and never officially enforced despite of previous possible violations in 2013 as indicated by the diffs here, I would like to stay put for the next move of this editor. In the meanwhile, pinging @HJ Mitchell: for more information. Alex ShihTalk 05:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if it was never enforced it should be enforced now dammit. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One can't simply "wait out" an indefinite sanction until people forget about it. At the very least, unless you find out from HJM that the TB has been lifted or has run out, the editor should receive a reminder that it is still in effect, and a stern final warning that any future violation no matter how far in the future from now will be met with a substantial block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beyond My Ken: Fair enough, final warning has been issued. Alex ShihTalk 07:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just leave these here for further evaluation of the behavior patterns of this editor: SPI of NYyankees51 (his account before renaming, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion ("NYyankees has engaged in an exchange that suggests a battlefield mentality"). I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I'd like to see what Harry Mitchell says. Mojoworker (talk) 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Taeyebar

    Taeyebar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been following my edit history, Wikistalking, or to use the current term WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for years, but it has gotten much worse in the last month. He continues to edit war over subgenres, putting in his preferred version in film article leads. He has been repeatedly warned about this.

    His announced intention to stalk me can be seen here. A number of his reverts of my work were immediately reverted by other editors, like this one and this one. Others have had run-ins with him as well, like Betty Logan. Last June User:TenTonParasol warned him here As a third and uninvolved party, I'm going to firmly warn: systematically undoing Gothicfilm's edits as part of an announced vendetta sparked by an unrelated issue is unconstructive battleground behavior (see WP:BATTLEGROUND). She backed up the warning here. But still, he persisted. He restored a phony credit I had deleted here. In one case he damaged a table, restoring bad formatting when he reverted my fix, as seen here. He created a red category link here, which he repeated twice. If you look at his edit history, over 90 percent of his edits since August 18, 2017 have been reverts of the last edit I did at certain pages.

    I posted another warning on his Talk page as seen here. He has lately taken to saying things like They both mean the same thing don't they? So whats the point and But i told you it can fit in one sentence. How is this change necessary? after repeatedly undoing my fix to a very long run-on sentence. Since being warned by DonQuixote yesterday regarding The Wicker Man (film series), he is now demanding discussion over my edits, trying to present himself as a responsible party watching over my activity. He has gotten away with this behavior because he usually spreads his reverts out over days, sometimes weeks or even months. I am asking for a block for a period of time to be determined by an admin. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, my dispute with Taeyebar involved his genre-warring, which mostly involved him replacing sourced genres with his own original research. However, this is surely unacceptable, regardless of whatever circumstances preceded it. That was posted almost two years ago so I think it is rather telling that a couple of years later Gothicfilm edited The Wicker Man (film series) and Taeyebar turned up and made his first edit on the article by reverting Gothicfilm. Two years is a long time to put up with that kind of harrassment. I think it would be appropriate to ban Taeyebar from reverting Gothicfilm, at least on articles he has never edited before where there can be no possible motive for him to be editing the page in such a short time span. Betty Logan (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ANi does a very poor job of protecting users from WP:STALKING. This report strongly supports the assertion that stalking is occuring [28] I'd like an explaination from User:Taeyebar for this editing pattern. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That report is very telling. Last June when warned by User:TenTonParasol, Taeyebar gave an explanation that can be seen here. Note her response to Taeyebar. He claims I am stalking him. Try to find any example of me undoing a useful edit of his. There are none. All were edits he had done against WP:FILMLEAD or other guidelines. A number of them were also reverted by other editors beside me. His reverts of my edits were not constructive and sometimes even caused damage, as shown in the links above. He has been reported many times. He has made repeated promises to behave better. But weeks or months later he is back to the same disruptive patterns. Note on June 22, 2017 alone Taeyebar did over 20 reverts of my edits. On five of them he left the edit summary you have been stalking me for years without consequence. until you seize i will continue. See two examples here and here. This kind of harassment needs to be met with a concrete response, not just another warning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Taeyebar doesn't seem to do much except engage in genre warring and wikihounding. Or am I missing something? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed One Way Interaction Ban

    The evidence presented above and User:Taeyebar's own words in edit summaries shows long term intentional WP:STALKing behavior. This warrants a standard 1 way indefinite interaction ban be placed on User:Taeyebar in favor of Gothicfilm. Violations will lead to blocks of increasing length.

    • Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support An explanation from Taeyebar isn't necessary. The evidence is clear cut that their behavior is disruptive and intentionally so. A I-ban is the least of the corrections we could take.--v/r - TP 22:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The interaction report is very damning. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked, and also support I-ban. After studying Tayebar's conduct in this, I don't think an I-ban alone is sufficient. The edits + edit summaries on June 22 2017 that Gothicfilm points to are outrageous, and this strong warning by an another editor the next day doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. And it's been going on for years! I have blocked them for a month for persistent disruptive editing which interferes with another editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia. I'll support a one-way I-ban also — an indefinite I-ban, of course — though I don't have much faith in I-bans in general: they tend to cause a lot of timewasting borderline problems, especially if the editors involved edit in the same area. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Support I-ban and current block. The adding of unsourced genres is bad enough but T's declaration that they will stalk GF's edits flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I was thinking more along the lines of an indefinite block, but a month-long block and interaction ban are OK, I guess. No more warnings, though – the next time Taeyebar reverts Gothicfilm, he should be indefinitely blocked for harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this is a last chance to do right. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Nobody should have to put up with this level of harrassment. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block, but failing that, support iban. I'm surprised no-one's mentioned WP:NOTHERE or WP:SPA yet. This user's reverting pattern and general behaviour is tendentious and pointy. LinguistunEinsuno 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the discussion has focused on the harrassment to the detriment of the other behavioral problems but that said it allows us to take decisive action on the most immediate issue. It will also serve as a warning to Taeyebar that he must change his ways. I am a big believer in sanctions before indefinite blocks anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Indef one-way IBan to be in place when editor comes off their 1 month block. Next step should be indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Indef I-ban and current block. If that isn't sufficient enough, then the next step should be indef block. SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 20:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Indef 1-way-IBAN - I don't favour 1-way-IBANs under normal circumstances but this level of harrassment needs to be dealt with immediately. I agree with others to leave the current block in place, though I have no opinion on any infraction escalation. I think that should be dealt with upon infraction when it can be reviewed standalone and separate from this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent edit warring

    Over the past month the Manny Pacquiao page has been subject to edit wars even with discussion on the talk page. Now information that is being kept is potentially libellous with a whole section being dedicated to it and now it has been added to the lede. Steroid allegations are a very serious claim and Pacquiao has already settled a lawsuit with Floyd Mayweather regarding these claims and should definitely be removed per WP:BLP as no criminal or sporting body has ever accused him of this and as the section says "there is no definitive proof on this subject, only speculation" and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Naue7 (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if this is a BLP issue, I don't see a reason to deal with it here. Either take it to the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Especially since this seems to be only a dispute over the lead as the content is well covered in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I should clarify when I say 'take it to the article talk page' I mean continue to deal with it on the article talk page, and if necessary use some method of WP:dispute resolution such as taking it to WP:BLP/N. I also see you seem to be proposing to remove the entire content. While I'm not commenting on the merits of including the content in our article, the BLP page itself clear that well sources allegations can be included so simply saying they are just allegations and very negative is not necessarily sufficient under BLP. In other words, even with the BLP issues, I don't see any reason for this content dispute to be on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The allegations are well documented and notable so WP:NPOV requires including them in the article (see also WP:WELLKNOWN). The section contents look fine to me, though people who follow the topic more closely might be better attuned than I am about what constitutes due weight in the context of rest of the article. As Nil says, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to ask for outside examination, or an RFC or mediation (if that's still a thing) might help. I don't see anything approaching an admin incident report here. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite the content dispute, the disputed content is being discussed on the article talk page. There are no current BLP issues on the article, the steroid allegations are well known and well sourced. Unless someone has something new to add here, then I suggest this report is closed and we get back to improving the article in question. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a real BLP issue as the "allegations" were presented in Wikipedia's voice, and are properly removed as violating policies and guidelines. Reinsertion of them clearly requires a clear positive consensus in accord with Wikipedia rules. Collect (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    All it required was the removal of the first line. Your removal of 84,951 bytes was slightly OTT. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. The current celebrity gossip so cavalierly re-added violates WP:BLP and requires an actual consensus for re-insertion. The claims as made make it appear that the subject barely escaped a blood test, that he is being sued for $5 million by "two fans" where that suit is unlikely to go anywhere, and such BLP gems as "The recovery process was quoted as miraculous.[109] Freddie Roach explained that Pacquiao is just joking around probably having a sense of humor while being interviewed and he's actually seeing a doctor and going through rehab on daily basis.[110]" seem to me to now call for admin intervention.Collect (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring to insert violations of BLP, V, and NPOV

    An editor, Spacecowboy420, has appeared on the Manny Pacquiao page, inserting material that violates BLP, V, and NPOV, and edit-warring to keep it in; and is disruptive all round. To show why their edits are in violation of policy, I'll have to describe the content of those edits. They have been reverted multiple times by different editors.[29] [30]

    • Editors inserts into the lead [31]: "Former two-weight world champion Paulie Malignaggi has consistently expressed his opinion that Pacquaio has used PEDs, noting that Pacquiao's run of dominant performances and knockouts stopped after Floyd Mayweather Jr accused Pacquaio of using PEDs." This is heavily undue for the lead, for one person's allegations to be inserted into the lead. Some of the sources are also questionable. The editor also uses the edit summary, "considering the huge amount of sources and content later in the article, this is highly relevant and worthy of the lede" - the reality is that the "steroid allegations" part takes up one paragraph, in a huge article, so is a false claim and disruptive behaviour.

    This edit [32]:

    • Editor inserts: "At the peak of his career until 2012, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time". This was based on a source published in 2010, whereas the added content discusses events at least until 2012 (and beyond really, because to know someone reached a peak at a certain time, there needs to be time afterwards for a decline). The editor added a source to support claims that happened after the publication date. Needless to say, this addition clearly fails WP:V.
    • Editor inserts into the lead: "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate." Among other things, this uses this source [33]. What makes this a reliable source? From that website:[34]

    NowBoxing.com is a boxing fans news blog and forum, where you can get the latest boxing news updates and share your thoughts on sport of boxing. We allow fans to get involved and have their opinions heard by giving them the opportunity voice their views through originally written articles.

    This nowboxing is a website that anyone can contribute to; it appears to be a self-published group blog, and is clearly no way a reliable source. To use such a source to make claims about the reputation of a living person is a clear violation of WP:BLP.

    • Editor inserts into the lead [35]: "While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn"." Editor inserts into the lead the opinion of one contributor in 2017, making claims about the reputation of a living person, which was published in an unreliable source - BLP violation.
    • Again regarding "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate", this source is used: [36]. This is a sourced published in 2011, used to make claims about events happening in 2012-2017. Again, this is a violation of verifiability.
    • Editor claims they have consensus when it appears consensus is against them - misleading behaviour that is disruptive
    • Editor deleted "In 2016, Pacquiao was ranked number 2 on ESPN's list of top pound-for-pound boxers of the past 25 years". This is an actual ranking by a reputable outlet, and is precise the kind of source we need if we are to discuss a boxer's 'greatness'. For the editor to delete it, tells me they have no interest in developing a proper article.

    Those are the main type of edits the editor has made on this article. I've tried my best to discuss with the editor, but they have avoided discussing those edits, and they have instead talked about side issues. It's abundantly clear that the editor is here to push an agenda on that article, and isn't afraid to edit-war and violate policy to do so. I only know the editor from the Pacquiao article, but a quick glance at their other edits tells me the pattern is there too. HampsteadLord (talk) 11:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The related article Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao has also been the location of this dispute. A report on AN3 was considered a bad faith report by a known sockpuppet with the history of that page showing 7 reverts within 24 hours. @Spacecowboy420: was reverting a sock of an indeff'ed user so these reverts fall within 3-revert exception #3. However, the information being added has the same issues identified above. For one editor violating WP:SOCK and WP:NPA to be reverting another possibly violating WP:BLP obviously greatly clouds the issue but it does not justify adding poorly-sourced information to a BLP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Attempt to block a valid revision about Isopanishad.

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I am trying to add a very simple addition to the body of knowledge on Wikipedia. However, some users have teamed up and are suffocating the edit due to their bias. Particularly, User:William M. Connolley is starting a edit war with me and calling the discussion boring. This editor has had a history of being warned and blocked. Please see their talk page.

    Please see my edit below:

    In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below.

    ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

    Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |

    Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||

    which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4].

    The users are unnecessarily making it a Europe vs. India issue and are calling me names and using bad words.

    Please render Justice.

    Regards, Wilkn (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Satyananda, Kaulacharya (March 1958). Isopanisad with a New commentary by Kaulacharya Satyananda. Ganesh & co., Madras Ltd. p. 39.
    2. ^ Radha Krishnan, Sarvpalli (1953). The Principal Upanishads. Allen & Unwin; Harper India; others. p. 564. ISBN 81-7223-124-5.
    3. ^ Aurobindo, Sri (1996). The Upanishads. Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press. p. 17. ISBN 0-914955-23-3.
    4. ^ Swamy, Sri Poorohit; Yeats, W.B. (March 1938). The-Ten-Principal Upanishads. Faber and Faber limited. p. 15.
    This has nothing to do with justice... This just seems to be a content dispute in which you have been blocked for edit warring. You failed in your mediation request and now are forum shopping it here. You need to gain consensus on the talk page of the article. If you can't, then you need to accept the fact that whatever you want to add does not belong in the article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)You have started multiple talk-page discussions on the same topic. That's disruptive to the discussion and attempts to improve the article because it makes it hard to know which is the "current" discussion and leads to the same editors making the same points without progress. You have claimed there is consensus for your preferred article content when there is not. That's disruptive and impolite. Much of the talkpage discussion seems fairly well-mannered and focused on the article content, and pointing out what aspects of your suggestions are (in others' views) against which specific content policies/guidelines. Please provide specific links to certain comments you find objectionable and we can give some specific feedback. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Among other things, they are using words like 'damned' and making fun of me saying I do not know 0 - 0 = 0. They are threatening me with blocks and calling me boring. However, that is not important. What is important is how they are ganging to prevent a perfectly legitimate addition because of their prejudice and bias. Specifically, I have posted my addition above. Kindly, inform me what is wrong with that addition? I did not get a response to this question on the talk page as well. In both the discussions, my comment is the last without any answer. The editors are just equivocating and citing of non-relevant Wikipedia policies. What policy is being violated by the above addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An unhelpful digression from the topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    You need to stop or you will be blocked. At this point, you are displaying competency issues. You are trying to edit against clear consensus. Drop it, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilkn, you may ignore outright block threats from editors who are not administrators. They do not have the power to block. See Wikipedia:List of administrators. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a threat, it's what's going to occur if he keeps disrupting like he is. Or am I wrong? --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to state your opinion, for whatever it's worth, provided you present it as your opinion. Please bear in mind that your lack of adminship is not immediately apparent. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no delusions of grandeur, nor do I have any desire to take up a mop. I'm simply saying what everyone is thinking here. Take a look at the Infinity talk page and tell me he's not heading for another block if he keeps spamming this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mandruss: People don't have to announce who they are on this page. In addition, many block "threats" are included in Category:Standardised user warning templates. Why take exception now? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show me a warning template that says, "Drop it, or be blocked." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How about {{uw-generic4}} "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia", or any other level 4 warning, for that matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If the word "may" means nothing to you, I don't know what to say. Warnings are worded carefully and precisely, and I read them equally carefully and precisely. The point here is that empty threats are nothing but attempts to "win" by intimidation, and that is not Wikipedian behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What a weird argument to take on. {{Uw-harass4im}} among others say pretty much that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not edit your comments after you have posted them if they have already been replied to. --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tarage: Stop acting as admin when you are not. I am waiting for the real administrators to act on my request above. Wilkn (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Wilkn has not learned anything from their edit warring block and continued to try to argue their incorrect inclusion across multiple boards, to the point of exhausting multiple experienced editors. Since they seem incapable of understanding consensus based editing, and instead are dead set on righting great wrongs, I request that Wilkn be topic banned from the Infinity article. This seems like the last step before a competency block.

    Tarage Explain incorrectness of my "inclusion." I have provided my entire edit above for your reference. Wilkn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wilkn do you or do you not understand what consensus means? --Tarage (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a need for this, I've already warned Wilkn re to WP:ARBIPA sanctions and if this behavior continues then any admin (or I) can impose a topic ban from the Upanishads/Indian philosophy topic area (which is covered by the sanctions and is applicable here), unless of course someone decides to block before that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I suggest you do it, because he clearly is NOT getting the point. How many days does this have to go on? --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MilwaukeeHD repeatedly adding erroneous information

    User:MilwaukeeHD's sole edits have consisted of adding erroneous information to List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee and Northwestern Mutual Tower and Commons. He's been reverted by two different editors and received several warnings. 32.218.34.191 (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 24 hours by Malinaccier a couple of hours ago. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And opened an account as Raymonda18 minutes later. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Raymonda18 has been indeffed as a sock. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.153.185.33 on Liberal Democrats article

    User 109.153.185.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly adding unreferenced in formation on the Liberal Democrats article. Their contributions have been reverted by another editor and myself, but have been ignored and change back by the IP. I have also left a warning on the IP's Talk page to no avail. David J Johnson (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The addition of unsourced membership figures has now spread to Conservative Party (UK). David J Johnson (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked the IP for a short time. It is however a dynamic range (BT) so I have watchlisted the articles concerned. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP appears to have re-surfaced as 217.42.40.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same unsourced changes. David J Johnson (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose temporary block from making AfD nominations for Sport and politics

    This is a complete waste of everyone's time. No admin action is going to be taken here, save possibly closing a number of the AfDs that SaP has started early via SNOW. SaP: stop using boilerplate AfD nominations, and concentrate on why those articles are allegedly non-notable; also, nominating articles that are heavily sourced in very reliable international news sources are never going to be deleted, regardless of NOTNEWS. Use WP:BEFORE, or you're wasting your time there. User:XavierItzm - SaP has not accused you of racism, they have merely pointed out your voting pattern on such articles, which indeed is to Keep all of them (including pretty poor rationales like this one). Don't make accusations like that, please. Have a look at User:E.M.Gregory, who whilst he has a similar interest in such articles, is quite prepared to vote to redirect articles if he does not think they are notable. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This series of rapid nominations were created by User:Sports and Politics this weekend by cut-and-paste copying User:TheGracefulSlick's nominating edit at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/June_2017_Champs-Élysées_car_ramming_attack_(2nd_nomination) by User:TheGracefulSlick (an article that itself was kept at AfD just 2 months ago). These articles were created by Sports and Politics with a canvassing template already in place. All of the articles are reliably sourced, several are longstanding articles that have been covered in books and scholarship, and revisited by mainstream media years after they occurred. Some, however, are articles about recent attacks and, as most administrators will already be aware, a shooting war has flared up in recent weeks in which a small number of editors have been actively nominating terrorism-related pages for deletion. One or two of the AfDs created by Sports and Politics are nominations on which reasonable editors might disagree. But as a group they are disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

    • I iVoted to redirect the 2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids. But the 2017 Bomb plot looks solid, the IEDs were shipped to Australia by ISIS, would-be suicide bomber is under arrest, Lebanese security tipped the Aussies off, one of the IEDs was inside a Barbie doll. A quick WP:BEFORE would have revealed all. Target was one of those immense Etihad flights out of Sydney. Reasonable people can differ on the 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why isn't that information, which would of course change how people !vote in an AfD, actually in the article? At the moment it reads like a news article saying that someone is suspected of doing something. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to add to the list above the deletion nomination for August 2017 Brussels attack and the deletion nomination for 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. The language on both is copy-paste. On both pages, the nomination proposes the page should be deleted for the following reasons:
      «Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism...».
      The words "extremist", "religious extremist", and "radical islamic terrorism" simply do not exist in either article. I question the WP:NPOV of a nomination which goes into loaded verbiage which is inapplicable to the article itself.
      Additionally, both nominations complain about WP:OR. Is the AfD process the right venue for handling WP:OR issues, or is this an abuse of the process?
      Full disclosure: I have argued for a "keep" on both cases, so I am an interested party. XavierItzm (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I shall only make this simple comment on this discussion. Why has no one attempted to talk on my talk page to me about any of these issues? I have made requests for this to happen with the nominator and this has simply not happened. The nominator wasn't even bothered enough to sign the notice of this discussion my talk page. I find it incredible that simple discussion on user talk pages is an alien concept. The simple question is are user talk page discussions dead? --Sport and politics (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) Comment  While I don't support the mass serial nominations, there are other resolutions available; and I don't choose to overlook that E.m.gregory has made a commitment to comment on the contributions not the contributor at a recent ANI discussion, here.  As reported two threads ago, he has twice made accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, [37], [38], which is a tactic I identified at the previous ANI discussion as a tactic used to shut me down at the AfD on WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress).  I don't think he is getting it.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can we not make this a list of AfDs we personally disagree with XavierItzm? We get it: you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable. Those two AfDs, however, are seperate to the template and copy-and-paste Gregory expressed concerns with. More seriously, this ANI has once again displayed Gregory has not learned from the previous case brought here; behavior is still an issue and AfD discussions are a catalyst for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:TheGracefulSlick:Please make no WP:PERSONAL. You offend me by calling me a racist on this edit immediately above. XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall calling you a racist. And I thought OR was only limited to articles!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    «you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable» is an accusation of racism. Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONAL. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I apologize XavierItzm, I did not realize referencing your take on notability could possibly be construed as an accusation of racism. Perhaps if I used words like "prejudice", "discrimination", "hatred", or -- I don't know -- "racist" in that diff you provide, it could be considered an actual accusation of racism. Wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Sport and politics

    SAP is continuously using bad words in her discussion and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with her. Check here where she wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. She seems to continue her sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The point trying to be made here is? The Load of horse shit was on my user talk page. You posted a hollow and false accusation, providing no diffs or evidence for it. I am going to call you out on that. If you don't like play somewhere else. It is beginning to feel like I am being trolled over the past couple of days, first E.M Gregory and now this. I hope I am wrong in that feeling but it does feel mighty mighty suspicious. Also sign comments when they are made, and post a courtesy notice to the person being complained about, of the existence of this discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The courtesy notice has now been posted. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) While personal attacks and incivility are forbidden by policy, naughty words are not. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is trawling for issues at its worse. I propose the person who bought this here be given a warning for wasting everyone's time, and process abuse. Sport and politics (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Sport and politics

    Appears to be accidental duplicate post. Alex ShihTalk 11:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sport and politics (talk · contribs) is continuously using bad words in his discussing and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with him. Check here where he wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. He seems to continue his sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why has this been posted twice? Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also avoid incorrect gender pronouns. Do not assume all Wikipedians are male.11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way

    —PaleoNeonate – 23:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [43], [44], [45]. 2 September: [46]. 3 September: [47]. Those are ones on my talk page.
    On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [48], [49]. 31 July: [50], [51].
    On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [52], 1 September [53], [54].
    On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [55]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [56], 3 September [[57]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Additional note: It appears however that the POV edits to Nephilim have ceased for now so I didn't ask for protection at RFPP yet. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Matter Involving me and Alpehb

    To whom it may concern,

    I thought I would give you some data to consider.

    1. I stated to Alpheb on his talk page, that I was not intending insult, nor was that which I stated unfounded ( having no basis, or merit, i.e a lie) and I clarified each point he brought up and back my statements with evidence that came from his statements to me. I stated the truthful facts, rather liked , or not.

    2. I, also, told Alpehb: "As stated before, and state once more, don't message me and I will not respond. Had you not sent your statement that required an answering response, I would not have pursued the matter any further. It was you who initiated the dialogue, not I. If you don't like what is said, don't initiate.

    Again, as stated, I would not have gone any further then the edit and the matter would have been dropped, had you not started the matter with your message to which I responded with the truth that is backed by the evidence given.

    You don't want to hear the truth, or anything that I say, then don't message me and I will not message you. (the embolden parts were not part of the original communique, but add here to bring your attention to).

    This was said and meant.

    I give this to you to show where I stand.

    On another matter concerning the article Nephilim, which started everything.

    The verse in the article stated: "When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version"

    This verse is given as reference for a quote in the article that states: "The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים‎) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4 of the Bible." (again embolden by me to bring attention to areas).

    I ask how can this statement be true, when the verse states that the nephilim were already on the earth by the verse, when the offspring was born? So, if the nephilim was not the offspring by the verse, then how can the statement given be accurate and true?

    Again, I state, it is up to you staff to consider the matter and act on it, or not, Just don't contact me expecting a response on the matter, for I have said all I am going to say on the matter. It is up you to deal with it, or not.

    I would not have even stated all this that went on after I made an edit that was deleted had I not got a message that required a response. It would have ended at the edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.207.96 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2017‎

    Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of WP:PERSONAL. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. Alephb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons:File:Mumbai Rail Map

    were deleted at 01:18, 3 June 2017 by Daphne Lantier (talk · contribs) because they were clear copyvios. Today Jaikishanpatel (talk · contribs) recreated the English version as a wrapper for File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.pdf. Because the old history is only visible to administrators, I can't tell if this is merely a coincidence, or if there's some sock-puppetry involved. Useddenim (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a Commons issue as all files and deletions are there, admins here can't view that. You'll have to post at Commons:COM:ANU or hope for someone like Nyttend who is an admin here and there to take a look at it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Jaikishanpatel was the Commons uploader for all three of them. They were unquestionably copyvios; the files are marked "© 2015 Industrial Design Centre IIT Bombay". Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Clear legal threat by 108.49.83.212

    108.49.83.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for 31h, the account behind this is already blocked indef as a VoA. —SpacemanSpiff 01:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Tendentious behaviour of Nfitz

    Nfitz (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a series of tendentiously clueless and/or mischievous discussions on a variety of subjects, one aspect of which led to this thread at User talk:Bishonen. They then transposed an edited version of that thread to their own user page in what might be a breach of WP:POLEMIC. Certainly, providing that edited version without any means for the reader to see the full context via a diff etc is disingenuous, especially given that they re-opened a closed thread etc. Aside from just ignoring them, which doesn't seem to work because they just spread the same type of commentary to other pages, what can be done to minimise the time-sink effect?

    I'm limiting my WP activity due to some meds playing with my head but will try to provide more diffs later. I'm pretty sure other people, such as Johnuniq, can add to this. - Sitush (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "edited" version was simply, as I clearly stated, the part of the conversation with the admin, without the unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwanted contributions from the peanut gallery. I'm not sure why anyone needs to looking at my seldom-edited user page to even notice such an edit. Anyone can go look at the full conversation; I fully admitted that it was edited; I stated clearly what was cut out. And I left every time-stamp intact, that someone can very quickly click on my contributions, and see the full discussion; not that I ever expect anyone to see something that I have put on my own user page, so I can remember it 6 months or a year from now. I fail to see why this is coming to ANI ... again ... without any attempt to communicate with me first. Sitush was only extremely peripherally involved with the entire discussion (which was never about what Sitush once said ... I can't even remember who said it without his reminder, but simply my failure to understand why that community consensus is that WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and other key parts of WP:5P4 are no longer considered very important. If Sitush had simply posted on my talk page - from which not only are they quite welcome (I've previously noted I'd quite interested to hear their thoughts on caste versus race, an area which they have much knowledge, and I have little), I'd have simply added a link - which I will do now. Please stop dragging people to ANI and try and communicate with them first; this appears to have become a habit of yours. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nfitz's extended commentaries are indistinguishable from trolling. A quick scan of User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and the immediately following User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows a gnawing compulsion to continue digging without any expectation of a benefit to the encyclopedia. People are allowed to disagree and there is no requirement that someone explain issues over and over and over. At this ANI archive, Sitush complained about a personal attack from someone unrelated to this discussion. At an AfD, that person clearly implied that Sitush's comments were motivated by antisemitism. The accusation was blatant although more subtle than a direct attack. The issue of the accusation is not relevant here, but its background is important because Sitush responded with one expletive to the accusation, and a lot of subsequent navel-gazing concerned whether implying someone is an antisemite is a worse CIVIL violation than using a bad word. Nfitz's first comment was diff at ANI with a cheery edit summary that started "perhaps for once, someone got the better of you!". That is, the person who accused Sitush of antisemitism had got the better of Sitush and had won the argument with their brilliant accusation of antisemitism. For some reason, Nfitz pursued the discussion at User talk:Johnuniq#ANI sit and then at User talk:Bishonen#Proofing and the F word. After ten days of back-and-forth, Bishonen closed the section, but Nfitz continued with diff. That last comment is a classic although childish debating tactic to say that Bishonen is failing to engage with Nfitz's good-faith desire to understand why everyone else is wrong. Nfitz then recorded the discussion at permalink where they essentially complain that Bishonen is at fault ("Attempt to engage in dialogue with neutral admin"). Can anyone point to positive contributions from Nfitz? At some point, their inability to drop the stick has to be confronted and it is unclear whether their presence at Wikipedia is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming to an Admin's page, who was generally uninvolved in the discussion, out of respect, and politely asking some simple questions to gain better understand, and avoid pitfalls, is not only not trolling, but it is the recommended procedure first step here to deal with differences of opinion. Bishonen DIDN'T close the section, a third-party did; and I never reopened it (other than fix a typo). The "last comment" was simply an apology for having intruded - anything else you detect was perhaps bafflement on why what to me looks like a simple polite exchange, has created any animosity with me (rather than the peanut gallery). Everything else you say here is some bizarre attempt to connect the dots, and make 2+2 = 5. No, I never thought that other editor was was suggesting that Sitush was antisemitic, nor was accusing Sitush of being antisemitic - perhaps I'm once again guilty of AGF, seeing the glass as half-full, and always assuming the best of people. But a simple disagreement on an obscure comment weeks ago, is not reason to continue this. What have I done? Well, most recently, I've been working on the very page that started the whole thing, quietly adding the sources that were never there to demonstrate that this was not just a small town newspaper, but showing extensive state-wide coverage over a significant period of time. No one else seemed to give that article any love once the AFD drama was over (I'm not done yet, I was going to try and research from a non-Louisiana perspective still). I continue my never-ending task to properly research User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team to determine if it is notable or not (I've been waiting weeks for library access, which I just received notification of yesterday), I've looking at Wikidata and how we might be able to use that data to create references using templates like "Cite Q" [58], and continue, as I have for over a decade, to work on certain local topics, et même éditer un peu dans l'autre langue. My time is very limited, I'm never going to spend hours every day working on the project. I can easily spend days or weeks without even appearing. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnuniq's summation above reflects my experiences with Nfitz on this noticeboard: seemingly automatic contrarianism, an apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend the arguments of others, repetition of the same points ad nauseum (only going deeper and deeper into a hole), and a complete inability to drop the stick.
      I have not looked into Nfitz's substantive editing, but it would have to be pretty darn good to balance out their commentary and produce a net positive. What, I wonder, is Nfitz's purpose in being here, and -- assuming they have positive content edits -- would a topic ban from Wikipedia space (which takes up over a third of their edits) [59] encourage them to participate more in actually improving the encyclopedia instead of treating the project like a glorified debating society? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really have little interest in responding to someone whose modus operandi is to get under someone's skin, and as the other person comes to your talk page, and points out your error, to "ban them" from ever appearing on your talk page, or pinging them. I've never seen anyone work so hard to only surround themselves by yes men. You've "banned" more people than I expect you can track of - so many you had to write a template to make it quicker to do so. BTW, yes a lot of my edits are in WP space - I've been contributing significantly to AFD, particularly in the Football area, for years. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I imagine it's no coincidence that their single most edited page on the project is... this one. — fortunavelut luna 07:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, Fortuna|, that didn't work, you apparently need to put it differently — I don't think you meant X's tools is Nfitz's most edited page. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    D'oh! -yes, of course. — fortunavelut luna 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this work. All I get is wt::getUserInfo is not a valid wiki. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet you've edits here than I do. You mean, you are going to violate WP:AGF and make an unfounded speculation. Unlike some, I don't adopt an article, and guard it from any changes with my life. And I respond to most queries on my talk page, on the other persons talk page. So it's no real surprise that a page like this has got the most edits. Even though I can go years without commenting here at all. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm simply going to take the advice others have given me, and withdraw further from this conversation - and try not even to read it; though I'll return if an admin feels it necessary for me to do so, and summons me on my talk page. Or if I fail to ignore and there's a particularly egregious mistruth or exaggeration. Personally, if you'd all simply do what I do, and AGF about what a person does, and their actions, we wouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, please don't ping me; I don't really want to read this. Twice in four minutes? Come on ... Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The tale of Ken
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    @Nfitz: Who's <redacted>? — fortunavelut luna 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one of Ken's various sock-puppets, from before they turned over a new leaf. Presumably named from the famous and obvious <redacted> ... I hope at least ... been a while. But really, I just asked not to be brought back here; couldn't you ask this on my talk page? No ... don't answer. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ken doesn't have "various sock puppets", Ken's had three accounts, none of which edited at the same time. Ken didn't realize at the time (poor, stupid, naive Ken) that Ken should have linked Ken's new account to Ken's old one, but Ken was attempting to get away from harassment at a time when en.Wiki was a lot less sensitive to that problem then it is now (when the pendulum has swung too far the other way). Ken didn't attempt to hide who Ken was by changing Ken's editing style or the subjects Ken edited, so, of course, when one of the harassers filed an SPI, Ken was speared like a fish in a barrel. (Ironically, the editor who filed the SPI was part of a very large sockfarm that had taken umbrage because Ken was attempting to get something done about them. They later continued their harassment of Ken off-Wiki.) Ken brought the matter of Ken's block to AN/I, where the community discussed it, and decided that Ken hadn't really done anything so very wrong, and allowed Ken to continue editing, and a thankful Ken has continued to do so ever since. Ken's opponents often bring this up as if it were the Jesus bolt that was going to bring Ken tumbling down, but Ken actually laid the whole thing out in User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, and Ken's still around. Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG this makes me so tired. I'll make this comment and no more. After Nfitz has been recently allowed back from an indefinite block, you'd think we wouldn't get all this nagging and poking and these potshots from them. I agree with Sitush that the way Nfitz has posted a steeply abbreviated thread from my talkpage on their own userpage doesn't suggest they're here for any good. Notice (now that Sitush has supplied a link) especially that the original thread contained eight posts by Nfitz, which the shortened version on his userpage has reduced to three. That reduction makes my tired final comment, "Nfitz, I really want you to go away and leave me alone", look unexpected and impatient. A minor point is that that comment of mine riffed on this one by MjolnirPants — Nfitz unmoored it by removing User:MjolnirPants as representing "the peanut gallery". AFAICS, what Mjolnir had posted was a kind-hearted attempt to answer the question Nfitz has asked so many times, and which I too had tried to answer without getting through. I thought Mjolnir's was the best attempt so far, and that perhaps light would dawn on Nfitz after reading it. Apparently not. I try to avoid referring to WP:CIR issues wrt individuals, but if the way Nfitz carries on lately isn't a CIR issue, I have to call it trolling. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are tired. I not four minutes ago, asked to be left out of the discussion, and you couldn't wait four minutes to ping me back? This has absolutely nothing to do with the block, which not only didn't involve ANY of the people involved here, had NOTHING to do with WP:CIVIL and was entirely about my misinterpreting something in WP:BLP which I admitted fully, apologized profusely, and haven't repeated - absolutely shame on you for approaching this with that prejudice! I have linked the full discussion on my page, as I said I would do above. You completely ignore my comments above, where I noted that I clearly stated that I had edited them, and what I had left out. My questions to you were simple, and in good faith, based on your admin comments earlier. You then chose to ignore this simple question for over 6 days. When I tried to get a bit more clarification (because I still honestly don't understand why you and the rest of the community thinks it's alright to call people fuckwits) you tossed WP:ADMINACCT out the window. Instead of calling you on that abdication of responsibility, I very politely apologized, and moved on. And for that, the now disappointed peanut gallery, who also thinks it okay to call people fuckwits, drags me and you here, to have a rematch. There were not eight comments to you. There were three; anything else was responding to unnecessary comments from the peanut gallery - which for some bizarre reason you have no problems with, despite them only trying to stir up shit. The first, which was very respectful and polite. A polite reminder 6 days later, as you had not replied at all. And then after your reply I politely responded. And again you fail to reply - and I have actually given up on you ever replying and left - when 5 days later, you suddenly pop back with a bizzare response that you don't want to discuss it. So I simply apologized and moved on. Not being able to leave the issue alone, you suddenly discover timeliness and within 3 hours you blank my apology, pretend I've posted inside a closed thread, ban me from your talk page, and are rude. And now you've the gall to come here, ping me not 4 minutes after I asked to be left out of it, and make out like I'm trolling or have a CIR issue, despite YOUR inability to understand WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and WP:ADMINACCT. Sorry, I'm no longer being polite ... but you can't both try and avoid the discussion, and then run here as fast as you can to join the peanut gallery in sticking an extra knife in the back. Okay, really done now. You asked to be left alone. Then kindly leave me alone, and not ignore what I wrote only 4 minutes before you pinged me. I'm no longer interested in your unending quest to be rude when only approached with kindness, politeness, and civility. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose block of Nfitz per the nominator's original complaint, which has been nothing if not copperfastened by continuing WP:STICK, WP:IDHT and a healthy dose of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not only have they just re-WP:OUTed BeyondMyKen (or at least deliberately pushed the envelope on whether they could do so), but, having claimed they are withdrawing from the thread, they return with a wall of text accusing Bishonen of all sorts of calumnies. Someone mentioned trolling above- this behaviour has, I agree gone from tendentious to trolling. — fortunavelut luna 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdrew until an Admin pinged me. There's no battleground, the debate was over, and Sitush continues to stick straws in the ant-nest. I'll happily never mention again. Perhaps you can tell me why it's okay to call another editor a fuckwit, simply because you disagree with them? And again I've reappeared, because of the "outing Ken" comment. How can I re-out Ken. I've no idea they was outed, let alone in. They identify their previous accounts and that they was blocked for sock puppetting on their own user page User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory. The public sockpuppet investigation is listed at <redacted per WP:OUTING>. And the name in the <redacted> song I mentioned above is listed in there as one of their socks. I'm not sure how idly mentioning his sock puppetry that he documents himself, and we publicly document to the world, is outing him. And since when was being a former sockpuppet a secret? Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? The effect is that other editors are drowned in Nfitz's snide commentary that is totally unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. Saving a false account of a discussion (see "edited version" in the OP) is bad enough, but smearing Bishonen with fake mentions of WP:ADMINACCT is unacceptable—the link states the obvious, namely that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, yet Bishonen is absent from Nfitz's block log and has posted a single message at Nfitz's talk. I don't know the OUTING background but clearly Nfitz's references to BMK above are an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hang on. WP:ADMINACCT is not just about tools. That's the first sentence of the first paragraph. Keep reading, onto the next line where it says Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think 6 days to reply to a simple, polite, civil, question is prompt, when the editor has been very active. And even then, I didn't raise it, until they came here, and started twisting the truth. And hang on, people unnecessarily discussing my background and calling people fuckwits isn't a personal attack, but very subtle mention that no one else would probably even get of someone else's past is an attack? Seems to be, if you don't agree with someone, and want to get rid of them, anything they say is an attack, and you can call them a fuckwit as much as you want, but it's never an attack. The hypocrisy here is stunning. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nfitz: Could you please either provide a diff for someone calling someone a fuckwit or strike the claim? I thought the controversy was over telling someone to "fuck off". GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, somewhere recently. That's in part why I have more or less stopped editing - the meds are messing me up. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • My diff was caught in an edit conflict. I previously diffed several comments the last time Sitush dragged me to ANI. On that note though, I won't diff the vulgarity in question. Sorry to hear Sitush ... I've been there. Heck, with the insomnia I have currently, meds are still playing with me - but a bit differently. On that note, a couple of quick real edits, I've been meaning to do for a while, and off to bed. Nfitz (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And after that act of kindness, they double down. @GoldenRing: Here's a recent diff. I previously diffed several similar the last time they dragged me to ANI. I focused on the fuck off because I felt it was worse (and was more recent). But similar comments aren't unusual such as this. But as I've stated before Sitush is a good editor ... however they have a battleground attitude that crosses over to the point that they can't accept even minor criticism. Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support So, despite even this thread being in part about posting in a closed talk page thread, Nfitz not only posted unnecessarily to my talk page but attempted to continue that via edit summary after I reverted them & asked them to go away. And their edit summary here bears no relation to the post and appears to be some sort of snide commentary in itself. This sort of behaviour has been going on for some time now, not merely in relation to the anti-semitism issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how asking you to simply discuss something with me first, rather than going to ANI is unnecessary. Also you DIDN'T ask me to go away. The second edit was simply fixing the Reflist you damaged when you reverted me; it was only after that you asked me to go away. And I did. What's wrong with the edit summary? My position is that that people need to be WP:CIVIL and you call that tendentious? In what way is asking people to be civil, being tendentious? How did being civil, somehow become controversial? Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I apologize then that I don't think it's okay to call people fuckwits or fuck offs or whatever you want to call people using the word fuck. Really going this time. Nfitz (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Block The exchange on Bishonen's talk page (and the subsequent "archiving" of an edited version) is the epitome of tendentiousness. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, good grief, I simply put it there, to read and understand the discussion between myself and Bishonen, without the peanut gallery comments, because otherwise, even I was having a hard time following it. It was never for public eyes, I kept it off my talk page (well I tried) just so no one would make a fuss, and I've now removed it. I didn't change a word of text, nor a date stamp of the comments between us. That's not the epitome of anything other than someone trying to understand what the heck happened. I have no idea why anyone ever even came across it - that page has gone many years with nary an edit. Tendentious behaviour would require me to put it somewhere prominent, not try and hide it away somewhere. Tendentious behaviour wouldn't also have waited weeks to get 2 responses, and would have pointed out the clear WP:ADMINACCT fail, rather than simply turning a blind eye for it, and graciously apologizing. What does a block accomplish here? Whatever issue there is, has been dealt with. I've never been accused of such a thing in the dozen or so years I've been here, despite having more than one disagreement during that time, so I'm hardly a danger to re-offend on this issue anytime soon. Though I still don't understand Bishonen's position that it's perfectly fine to call people names, like fuck off or fuckwit. Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    *The above response, particularly Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away clearly illustrates that this editor is unable to let things drop and walk away. Strongly support a block. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose block. I see unfortunately heated exchanges, and I don't see any one individual as being the 100% baddie here. There have been some unfortunate overreactions (to some unacceptable insults, certainly), but I'd stop short of labeling anything as deliberate trolling. I don't see how any blocks now would be preventative, and I recommend chilling, cooling and generally relaxing all round - if everyone can just put this behind them and move on, wouldn't that be lovely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, and just a suggestion for anyone who really wants to help defuse all this - take the high ground and be the first person to stop talking about it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The high ground has been tried but still Nfitz persisted, eg: the closed thread on Bish's talk page mentioned in the original post. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't mean *you* (meaning any other individual involved) can't just stop and walk away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose block. At least for now. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee, I don't see anyone being particularly at fault here. A block here would unlikely be helpful and blows this out of proportion unnecessarily. May I have some time to ask Nfitz on his talk page to drop the discussions that are being perceived as tendentious? If that fails, then perhaps an editing restriction can be implemented. Alex ShihTalk 14:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose  WP:Civility is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Let cooler heads prevail. Nfitz is already on thin ice with the recent indef block and they know it. They are trying to withdraw from the conversation at this point. However, if something borderline tendentious happens again this should be considered - good faith can't be assumed every time. Garchy (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • They haven't withdrawn from it in three weeks, despite numerous explanations and requests to do so. And they were still in the same vein here and elsewhere only a few hours ago. Why will it be any different this time? A block until they demonstrate an understanding seems entirely preventative to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You could be completely correct - but I view a block here as punitive, not preventative. Not blocking in this particular incident would not prevent a block in the future, if an issue arises again. Based on their behavior once this came to ANI I don't see a block being preventative. Garchy (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, over 2 weeks - I can't even count now. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support wikispace topic ban if an indef block is not feasible. As someone who has actually come to Nfitz defense on some things they said which could very easily be construed as a BLPVIO, only to be personally attacked for not defending everything they say, my first impression of this editor has been formed, baked and sealed; and it is not good. It seems to me that 12 years of editing aught to be enough to teach someone what a BLP vio is, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems that 12 years of editing should be enough to teach an editor when to drop the stick, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems to me that 12 years of editing would be enough to teach an editor how assuming good faith is something that only needs to be done when you really don't want to do it, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. Nfitz has gotten plenty of slack from the admins so far, and it seems to me that it's about time that slack ran out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support close. Nfitz has removed the content from their user page, and Wikipedia:Not Colosseum. NE Ent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Not Colosseum is a really good link. BMK brought up that this page is Niftz's most edited page. I think that an editor who's more concerned with the drama than with the encyclopedia is one who might benefit from the topic ban I mentioned. Also, it's generally considered inappropriate to close a thread which is soliciting community input after less than 14 hours. I understand the desire to shut down drama machines, but sometimes letting a smaller drama machine run will save us from dealing with a larger one in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was about tendentious behaviour, of which the posting on their user page was just one example. Even in removing it, their edit summary shows no understanding of why. As in past instances, including the BLP issue others have referred to, they have some sort of misunderstanding of AGF as a panacea. It isn't (eg: WP:PACT), and it definitely isn't when it is applied only to suit one's own position. Anyway, that's me done here - due for another doping. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This appears to be "OUT Beyond My Ken" week, since an editor who attempted to out me juts a few days ago wound up being blocked. Interestingly, he posted pretty much the same information that Nfitz did here, but, of course, that doesn't make Nfitz's WP:OUTING any more acceptable. I have warned Nfitz on his talk page that they violated that policy, and that a repeat on his part will be brought to admin attention. In the meantime, I have redacted the information, and asked it to be oversighted, as it was in the previous instance.
      Nfitz make some interesting remarks about me. First he comments about my modus operandi which, as is often the case with Nfitz, he gets totally wrong. My modus operandi is to improve the encyclopedia in any way possible, which is why 73.05% of my edits are to Mainspace, [60] whereas only 34.2% of Nfitz's edits are to Mainspace [61]. If I get into a disagreement with another editor, it gets taken to the article talk page to straighten out. If the other editor insists on taking it to my user talk page, and won't cease when I ask them to, then, yes, absolutely, I throw them off my page ignominiously, on their backside, just as I would throw out of my house someone barking at me in my living room with a bullhorn. As I remarked to one editor, I have to engage with them on the article talk page, and I'm happy to do so, but there is no obligation that I keep my user talk page open to bores, cranks, idiots and assholes. I might even tell one to "Fuck off" if the circumstances were appropriate.
      So, it would certainly be understandable if, given his attacks on me, if I were to !vote for an indef block for Nfitz, but I'm not going to do that. I'm am going to support the option I mentioned above, before he decided to violate policy and outed me. Beyond My Ken (talk)
    My apologies Ken. I never saw the other discussion. If I had, I would never have been that stupid, in the middle of a discussion to block me?. I didn't mention anything Ken has already mentioned himself elsewhere, and I thought was common knowledge for obvious reasons that I can't discuss. I'm strongly in favour and support the outing policy, and will never mention it again, and work to make sure others don't as well - no matter which way Ken votes. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - However, some kind of sanction against Nfitz is required, given his egregious record of behavior, so if the consensus is for a block, that would be my second choice, and this should be taken as support for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of silly new pages

    Looks like all the pages have been deleted, thanks to everyone who helped out. Simplexity22 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could an admin please take a look through the new-page feed? There seems to be a mass-vandalism attack, or something, going on. Simplexity22 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah it is getting crazy-I have marked some myself, take it you have also. Might need to see these guys/girls blocked also. Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Also see those new accounts who edited MCC, pretty sure these are related. Already opened an SPI case but still need to add the new page spam accounts. -★- PlyrStar93. →Message me. 🖉← 04:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Several other pages have been edited as well by them-one guy edited NCC a couple times. Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Scor140399

    Scor140399 (talk · contribs) continues to inappropriately add non-free content to articles despite being advised multiple times not to do so. The non-free uses of File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png were previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (escudo).svg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 17#File:Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran.png, and the files were subsequently removed the file from Brazil national football team and Iran national football team respectively with this edit by administrator by Explicit and this edit by adminstrator Graeme Bartlett as a result.

    Scor140399 first added the logo to the Brazillian team article here despite there being a hidden comment advising that the image had been removed per the aforementioned FFD discussion. The image was removed again with this edit explaining why. Further explanation was added to User talk:Scor140399 here and here. Scort140399 subsequentally re-added the image again here and once again here even after being advised for a third time not to do so on their user talk with this post. Similar re-adding of non-free content to the Iranian team article here and here despite edit sums explaining why the file was removed.

    I realize that Scort140399 has only been editing for little over a week (at least the account has only be editing for about that long) so it not totally unexpected that they would not be familiar with WP:NFCCP and the aforementioned FFD discussions. They have, however, been advised of these things and yet still continue to re-add the files. While it's true that even a FFD consensus can change, there is a proper way to go about doing so and Scort140399 has been advised (at least with respect to the Brazillian team logo) to discuss things with the closing admin and see what needs to be done. A short block might seem a bit harsh in a case like this and mistakes are to be expected (especially from new editors), so perhaps one final warning from an administrator might help the situation and avoid anyone getting blocked. At some point, however, repeating the same mistake(s) over and over again starts to move into WP:IDHT territory and may require something stronger than a warning. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly: I have issued a final warning. Based on user contributions, this is probably a simple case of WP:CIR, where a block may be the only way to get their attention. Hopefully it won't escalate to that point. Alex ShihTalk 12:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Alex Shih. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerned about a question and responses from an editor on the RD

    I would like to ask for User:Plasmic Physics either be blocked or topic banned from the WP:RD. They are trying to emotionally blackmail people into answering questions on the RD to help them with their plans to carry out experiments which could be risky, apparently without competent supervision. I removed the nonsense once and gave them an only warning that that crap wasn't welcome on the RD, but they reverted. I've removed again but in the absence of an assurance from Plasmic Physics that they will never try to such nonsense on the RD again, I think they either needed to be blocked or topic banned from the RD. You can see the question and responses here [62], my second removal. My first removal was [63] and it was added back here [64]. To be clear I don't know enough of the chemistry to say, how risky these plans are and most likely wouldn't comment on the issue even if I did, but another editor has expressed concerns and one of their responses was what brought this here:

    If other users are abstaining from giving advice because of safety concerns, then they are actually doing me a disfavour, as come 2018, I will go ahead with this experiment, with or without their advice. If the safety issues are as severve as you suggest then, I think we can both agree that I would be better off prepared than not.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, I did briefly consider notifying WP:Emergency even though it wasn't urgent but although I know it's normally better to notify than to not, I decided this was definitely not the sort of thing that would get any action. Likewise although I live in NZ and I believe the editor does as well, I'm not sure there's any real authority I can contact who will be interested. (That said, if anyone does feel there's someone to contact, feel free to let me know.) Ultimately if the editor wants to carry out potentially risky experiments without competent supervision or knowledge we can't stop them. But people on the RD should be free to choose not to answer questions because they fear the consequences if their advice is wrong, misunderstood or misapplies, and therefore should not be told their refusal to answer is wrong because someone plans to be reckless regardless. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's OK Nil, he's in New Zealand. He'd have to go full China Syndrome before it affects the rest of us. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and my warning is here [65] Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not that I think that it is needed, but in my defense - my final post under the question before it was finally removed was as follows: "Let me make it absolutely clear to any interested party - the pripmary aim of this query does not include obtaining health & safety information, but does not exclude its provision." Everyone can also see that at no one point did I make demands. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrespective of whether you are asking for health and safety advice, no editor should be seen as "doing [you] a disfavour" if they choose not to give you advice. If anything, I would go as far as saying that no editor should answer any question where another editor might potentially be putting themselves at risk, even if that editor were qualified to do so. Blackmane (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Public opinion on an abstainence is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I see it as a disfavour, since I will be put at a disadvantage, which is included in the definition of 'disfavour'. Level of risk is both relative and subjective, not absolute. Just about every action in life has a level of risk involved, from stirring a hot cup of tea to crossing a busy street. It should be every user's prerogative to decide for themselves, whether abstaining or engaging carries more risk to the poster of any particular querry. I was hoping that other users would consider my potential disadvantange when making that decision for this querry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what all the fuss is about. Here at Wikipedia editors blow up all the time. EEng 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16

    Over the past year, User:Thetruth16 has been editing the following articles related to former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos and his subsequent downfall:

    He adds content to these articles and uses sources to tilt the article's neutrality to be "pro-Marcos". Here are some examples:

    • In the Philippine presidential election, 1986 article, he tilted the neutrality of this article by reiterating that both the ancestors of Benigno Aquino Jr. and Salvador Laurel (Benigno Aquino Sr. and Jose Laurel) both collaborated with the Japanese during World War II. This fact does not fit in this article, since the topic is about the 1986 snap elections. (see 1)
    • In the same edit history, this editor added the fact that one of the computer technicians that walked out of the Comelec count, Linda Kapunan, is connected with the Reform the Armed Forces Movement, and indicated that the walkout is planned by RAM, discrediting why the walkout happened in the first place. (see 1)
    • In the People Power Revolution article, this user added a statement that the one that issued Benigno Aquino Jr. the fake "Marcial Bonifacio" passport is linked with the Moro National Liberation Front, and at the same time, reinforcing the sources that Marcos declared Martial Law because of communist insurgency and the Moro uprising. If you read the whole article, it made it look that Aquino is being linked with communists and Moro rebels. (see 2)
    • In the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, he reiterated that Aquino's father, Benigno Sr. was a Japanese collaborator during World War II. It also claimed that Aquino did support the Moro rebellion and "rubbed elbows" with the Communist Party of the Philippines in the 1970s. (see 4)

    If his edits got reverted, he immediately challenges whoever reverted his edits to counter everything that he had put up there and he uses the WP:Reliable sources as his shield so that his edits won't be easily removed. He uses sources in such a way that it will favor his "pro-Marcos" ideology. Many users have already complained about his editing behavior and this user got blocked twice for edit-warring. See first and second ANI report against this user. Recently after removing most of his edits, he reverted it back to his version of the article.

    There was also a proposal to impose a topic-ban to this user since the his edits are getting too disruptive to the neutrality of the article mentioned above. Please check if the edits itself adheres to WP:NPOV and a topic-ban or a block can be imposed for this user. Thank you. -WayKurat (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:
    As you can see above, all the contributions you deleted (which I reverted) cited reliable sources and are verifiable. We have a content dispute here yet you keep on raising about my conduct Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, current and past, while you yourself have deleted a large swath of cited content without discussing first contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that "the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten". Content disputes are better discussed in the talk page Talk:Benigno_Aquino_Jr but it seems like your preferred route in handling content dispute is to delete, and to report to admin after your deletions got reverted. Thetruth16 (talk) 12:05 pm, Today (UTC−4)

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benigno_Aquino_Jr.#/media/File:Philippine_puppet_government_officials_in_Japan_1945.jpg
    @Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian.thomson: The second point covers this edit. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per WP:RS. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WayKurat I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? @Ian.thomson: Thetruth16 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    In my experience, Thetruth16 has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -Object404 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.
    And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.Thetruth16 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the Moro National Liberation Front to undermine Philippine interests."[1] specifically to make the subject look bad. -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what WayKurat has deleted/censored. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    76.116.148.215 disrupting two pages

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

    User 76.116.148.215 making unsourced edits to Disney's Animal Kingdom and Six Flags Great Adventure, multiple times over multiple days, ignoring attempts to discuss on talk page, and ignoring subsequent disruptive editing warnings on talk page. Also request the two pages IP is disrupting be locked 24 hours at least. Rockypedia (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Six Flags Great Adventure page was given a source, from Six Flags itself. The issue stems from incorrect information regarding the captioning of "the world's largest theme park". This record is currently held by Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey, which stands at 510 acres. Someone on Wikipedia continually attempts changing the Six Flags Great Adventure page to erroneously show that the 500-acre Disney's Animal Kingdom is somehow larger than the 510-acre Six Flags Great Adventure. The source is Six Flags itself. The "sources" stating Disney's Animal Kingdom are not valid and outdated. (In addition, since I work for the amusement industry, Disney's Animal Kingdom is 403 acres, and has a 97-acre parking lot, bringing it to 500 acres. They are unable to expand further. Since this is insider knowledge, I have not placed this on the Wiki article, but I just thought you'd like to know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.148.215 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017‎

    We go by reliable secondary sources here. The OC Register source is easily a reliable source (and not outdated - it's from June 2016), and the other two are not as strong but good sources nonetheless. We go by reliable sources because otherwise, anyone could arrive here and claim that they had "insider knowledge" that contradicts your "insider knowledge." Additionally, your Six Flags source is a primary source, which is not the worst thing in the world, but not as good as a secondary source - and that source plainly states "largest regional theme park in the world", whatever that is. My guess is the "regional" qualifier is there to allow them to claim "largest" by excluding Disney from "regional" theme parks, but who knows. Either way, Animal Kingdom is 580 acres, and Great Adventure is 510.
    You also should've discussed this on your own talk page, or the talk pages of the articles in question, long before now, but you ignored my attempts to discuss. I'm glad you're finally discussing now but it shouldn't have taken an administrator warning to get you to do this. I'd also strongly suggest you register an account. Rockypedia (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay you've now reverted again, here, without continuing the discussion or even acknowledging the WP:CYCLE link I pointed out to you on your talk page. Admins, I give up. I don't think this IP is interested in a discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Semiprotected both for a week, to encourage the IP to use talk or find something else to work on. If that doesn't work longer semiprotection may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Unite the Right rally

    Added sanctions notice. GABgab 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not an "incident" per se, but nevertheless I'm requesting that an administrator please add this page to their watch list, or preferably just slap the 1933 politics sanctions on the damn thing. Seems anything related to the alt-right or white nationalists deserves this sanction. Since I don't watch this page, ping me if you want a response. I'll show myself the door. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. This article is pretty unambiguously related to post-1933 US politics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I keep thinking I should do it but forget. I'm easily distracted. :) I can't do it from my tablet though, hopefully someone will do it before I get back to my PC. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket, MjolnirPants, and Doug Weller:  Done ([66]). GABgab 20:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Karlfonza

    I recommend stronger measures for Karlfonza (Commons page has more info/ad content). They continually keep uploading unencyclopedic (often highly artistic) images and adding them to broad-topic articles such as "Word", "Library", "Ant", and "Vase", all in cases where obviously useful images exist, and this editor just wants to tack on their own images. I've been trying to revert most of the edits, though there's a lot. A very small percentage of their photos or actual edits are beneficial, making the work tedious and yet making me hesitant to suggest a sitewide ban, but they clearly don't understand the rules and won't bother to learn them. Any advice? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IP: 217.42.40.168 on Liberal Democrats and others.

    Resolved, nac SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

    Appears to be same person adding unsourced changes as 109.153.185.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see entry above. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Also blocked, and I've semi-protected the main articles for a while this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspicious activity on Bob Vila article

    BNT
    Hammer time. Alex ShihTalk 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    File:The Incredible Hulk - Hulk.jpg
    Eeng loosing his temper.

    Can a few others take a look at Bob Vila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? At first, I was guessing a school project (copyrighted image being uploaded to Commons as "own work", YouTube search result links containing copyrighted content uploaded by third parties); but then I noticed all the activity started with Seldexx (talk · contribs) on August 30th, who was blocked as a sock of ConsumersDistributingonline (talk · contribs).

    Opinions? Is a sock investigation needed/warranted here? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @GeneralizationsAreBad: it's 100% ConsumersDistributingonline - all gibberish accounts created since the last round of blocks making rapid, poorly referenced edits to retailers and related topics, obviously seeking autoconfirmation so they can go back to messing with the semiprotected articles they've likely been paid to edit. Sleeper checks aren't very useful with this case, just block away. I'm travelling until midday tomorrow (ADT) and can't efficiently swing the block hammer from here, but please feel free. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, you said ADT (daylight time) but you linked Atlantic Standard Time. People always get standard time and daylight time mixed up and it MAKES ME LOSE MY TEMPER! EEng 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Two.25.45.251

    I'm going to go out on a limb and request some sort of clemency for Two.25.45.251 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked by Favonian as a sock of the Best Known For IP. The Long-Term Abuse page is here, and the registered account has just been added to it. So far as I know, this is the first account this editor has ever registered. He's been a long-time determinedly unregistered editor. His edits have been mostly gnoming, with emphases on removing POV (notably for a long time, the phrase "best known for", hence the moniker) and on fixes to statements about science. Note this edit summary by Ritchie333 on that LTA page, a couple of weeks after he created it: "this one has never done actual WP:VANDALISM as such". The "long-term abuse" consisted of edit warring and incivility when he was reverted. There is a very long story here, including numerous AN/Is (many, possibly most, started by the person himself objecting to being treated as a vandal). During my adminship, I was part of an effort with Drmies (I believe it was my idea) to get him to stop being uncivil and thereby break the cycle of his being blocked and then blocked again for block evasion. I remain convinced that his article edits are not merely well intentioned but overwhelmingly good. However, the effort failed (although he's been noticeably more civil since), and he was community banned in January 2016 after this discussion at AN.

    Most recently, it was his blocking by Winhunter and complaint here that led to a case that is currently open but on hold at Arbcom. During that discussion, Berean Hunter revealed that he had been contacted by the IP's employer and had advocated the editor take the standard offer, beginning with registering an account.

    The editor's statement at the Arbcom case request—or that of the recently registered editor now blocked for being the BKFIP—is here. I had noted some of the statements the editor quotes, and the one calling him a vandal particularly saddened me. This person has wound up community banned despite not being a vandal, and to my mind that is at odds with our purpose here, and calling him a vandal because of the existence of an LTA case page, or even because he is community banned, an unforgiveable looseness of terminology. Whatever we do about uncivil editors, whether registered or not, we must not throw around terms like "vandalism" if the edits don't justify use of the term.

    This editor has been community banned, and the administrative corps generally follow comunity consensus. But it seems to me that he has a right to make a statement at the Arbcom case, regardless of bureaucracy, and that he also deserves credit for finally doing what many people begged him to do, and registering an account. Can any of the experienced editors here suggest a way forward, if it's only letting his statement remain at the case page and transcluding further statements from his talk page? I do feel this person is owed far better treatment than, say, Willy on Wheels: he has not edited "for the lulz" or to push a point of view, and if he's ever vandalized, I've not seen it. Nor, as I say, do I see him being seriously uncivil in recent edits, although I may have missed it. I defer to the wise folks here; I'm out of ideas. (And I'm now going to notify everyone I pinged. I won't notify Winhunter; anyone who disagrees with that judgement call, go ahead.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This user specifically stated they are not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I have only limited experience with the LTA we call "best known for ip", but what experience I have shows that this person routinely attempts to actively deceive administrators during unblock requests. If this user is indeed "best known for ip", they are doing the same here, too. This is said without prejudice; I cannot tell if they are the same person. Is it not the case that this user could make a statement to Arbcom via email? If it is not the case, I would endorse unblocking a talk page solely for this purpose. I believe Yngvadottir is not suggesting we lift the community ban, and so I make no statement on this point. --Yamla (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Even if they aren't the BKFIP, they are clearly admitting to evading a ban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 Keep them blocked. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my understanding that Yngvadottir is not disputing block evasion. I haven't looked at the case, but it seems the question raised is whether, assuming the editor was "only" uncivil but not harmful to articles, the response was proportionate, and whether evasion of an unjust block would be excusable. (As I said, I haven't looked at the case; I'm only trying to clarify for myself and others what the argument is about.) Samsara 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If this user wishes to make a statement on the Winhunter case, they can do so by email to arbcom-l, or they can email me and I will copy it to the case page as a clerk action (assuming that the content is not in violation of policy). GoldenRing (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as one of the many, many, many blocking admins. BKFIP's song and dance has for years been that their "good" edits ought to wholly excuse any possible misbehaviour, of which there has been plenty (see WP:BKFIP, I'm not going to repeat the laundry list). So this account claims they're not the same person, well so have nearly every one of the IPs listed on the LTA page, and the editor has admitted in the past that our list is "massively incomplete". They've behaved in exactly the same manner as BKFIP: angrily objecting to a series of "good" edits being reverted and then edit warring into a block, resuming the edit war when the block expired, lashing out at anyone who didn't agree with their "good edits" justification, and swearing they're not BKFIP. I have zero doubt that they are, and BKFIP is an editor who WP:TE and WP:CIR could have been written about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, I fully agree that we throw around the term "vandal" much too liberally. BKFIP has never been a vandal as far as I'm aware, but certainly a tendentious and disruptive user. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you opposing?? The question was "can you suggest a way forward"? So you're opposing any solution? NE Ent 01:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had an interaction with BKFIP a couple months ago, and based on that, I am not terribly hopeful that we can find a solution here besides the ongoing on whack-a-mole with their IPs. I found that they were completely unwilling to admit that there was even a possibility they were wrong. Even if they were correct about the content issue (and I do not believe they were in this case) such an attitude makes communication very difficult. So mark me down as pessimistic. That said, if we wanted a way forward: with sockpuppeteers, we generally ask for them to sit out a block of a certain length, and then appeal, upon which the standard offer usually includes an unblock and some restrictions. We could try the same thing here; ask them to sit out a six month block; appeal thereafter; if they don't use IPs in the meanwhile, unblock them, but place a 1RR restriction and possibly a civility restriction (yeah, I know those work too well). I can't really come up with something easier than that. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (Responding to remarks and suggestions above, not just to Vanamonde93, but parking here for neatness' sake.) A 1RR has been tried in the past. As to civility restrictions, as I say, my impression is he is much more civil now, but the community's patience has been exhausted and a ban is a ban. I'm not asking for it to be reversed because I'm clearly way outside the community norm here; I believe I was the only one arguing against it in the ban discussion, which I linked above. But WP:CIR?? This editor writes excellent English and his edits are overwhelmingly good, including demonstrating a grasp of science I wish I had. (Not all, however. I've been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from him myself for not agreeing with all his edits.) He very much had a point about knee-jerk reverts—until he was banned. There may be developments in the case of which I'm unaware; in particular, I see an Arb making statements about him baiting admins into blocking him, and I have no idea how his editing history of which I'm aware can be construed that way. What I see is someone with a laudable addiction to improving the encyclopedia and expertise we can use, who has a terrible temper and sufficient mastery of the language to sling stinging insults, but who has (in my estimation) come increasingly close to keeping a civil tongue in his head in accordance with community norms, and has also worked with us by finally registering an account, for which I think we should afford him some modicum of allowance. Maybe the suggestion to e-mail Arbcom is a start, thanks. Maybe the arbs will also allow the statement he already made to be restored? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is certainly a common community antipattern of the form "make reasonable good-faith edit, get reverted/templated/blocked/otherwise mistreated, overreact with incivility, get written off as a disruptive vandal". This case may have started out that way, but I don't think it's a great fit for that pattern anymore; it now looks a lot more like "make edit likely to prompt inappropriate reverting/templating/blocking/etc and use that overreaction as an excuse to stir up drama". But arbcom does have a way of making everything look worse. If you think you have a better way to approach this situation, I certainly won't stand in the way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is no harm in restoring his comment to the Arbcom case. I know "Banned means banned, goddamit!" but what have we got to gain by censoring his views? He is a party to the case and we should put his opinions up - we don't have to agree with them. Asking him to email arbcom sounds like a pointless dog and pony show, when we actually have the statement already in our archives. More specifically, I would revert this edit but the page has been full-protected so I guess it would be "admin abuse" to do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paging @Amortias: who protected the page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The page(s) were protected as no case has been opened and as such no evidence should be being submitted, if and when the case is officially opened and evidence is required this may be included (it being presented by a blocked user may need to be dicsussed seperatley) until then the pages should be left as the are. If the committee wish to have this included they are free to include it themselves as tehy can overrule any clerk action, anyone who wishes to have the information added to the page is free to request it from the clerks or lodge a a request to the committee via e-mail or at the arbitration noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That removal also included two sections added by IPs, some or all of which material has now been added to my talk page. It doesn't belong there and goes into things I know nothing about, because I don't know anything about the other banned user mentioned in the removal edit summary, although I did at one point know a lot about the BKFIP case. It's only his statement, under the registered account I named in the section header, that I would ask to be restored at some point. At what point is also above my pay grade. @Opabinia regalis: thanks, and maybe you do know when it should be added. I suspect you are confusing two cases, but as I say, I may have missed more recent developments. I would also not have removed talk page access; venting after a block is expected; but since he's banned, he's not going to get unblocked, so presumably that factored into Huon's decision. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problematic edits continue after blocked

    24.178.29.47 (talk · contribs) I have reported this IP three months ago, and this IP has been blocked for three months by Berean Hunter for disruptive editing and failure to discuss. After this three months block has expired, this IP continue to making inaccurate changes in hip-hop related articles without explaining why. I been keeping an eye on this IP after the block has expired and it's look like the editor behind this IP haven't learned anything at all from the block. The edits has continued and still don't generally helping the articles at all, they still don't seem to have any concept of proper grammar or the Manual of Style. The IP is still making very awkward grammatically incorrect edits in album pages and it doesn't help they keep disregarding the messages and continue to edit without giving much a response. Example, when I left a comment try to explain why I have a problem with the edits, but didn't get a response. I have try again, but still didn't get a reply, this editor has ignored warnings and continue making these unnecessary changes to articles, and editing without responding is considered disruptive.

    Edits before block:

    Edits after the block has expired:

    I added the old diffs at the top to remember the last report I made regarding this IP. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As I mentioned in a section or so above, I don't watch this page. But a ping and an inadvertent mouse click brought me here. First off, it seems to me that if you are going to complain about another user's grammar, you ought to be more careful about your grammar when filing a complaint against them. In fact, the grammatical errors you've made on his talk page are so glaring that it takes some real chutzpah for you to even mention the word "grammar". Speaking of the ip's talk page, you accused his edits as being "disruptive", yet I've looked through his contribution history and I'm not seeing it. Perhaps he made a few grammatical errors, but if bad grammar is now a critieria for determining disruption, have a care as you yourself might have a block coming your way. I also see you directing him not to "stop going to articles to change things out of personal preference, these articles was just fine how they are" which sounds an awful like WP:OWNERSHIP.

    Outside of slapping a template warning (and subsequent berations) on his talk page, it doesn't look like you have tried to engage him on any of the talk pages of the few articles he has edited since his block expired. Why is that? He is under no obligation to respond to you as the two of you don't appear to be in an edit war. AFAIK regular editors who follow policy are under no obligations whatsoever to respond so don't presume to lecture him on his need to respond to you if you aren't bothering to give him something meaningful to respond too in the first place. Someone making edits you don't like is not disruptive editing. Him not giving you the time of day is also not disruption.

    Finally, I'm a bit confused as to this edit of yours on the ip's talk page which according to your contributions was made 16:52, 4 September 2017, yet your signature time stamp reads 23:25, 3 September 2017. What is going here? That man from Nantucket (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @That man from Nantucket: Why are you questioning my timeline for and did you even look at the whole talk page? I try to engage with this editor before and never get an reply, here the diffs to prove it [92] [93] [94] [95]. Another editor PaleoNeonate, give this editor advice to communicate but ignore it and keep on editing before Berean Hunter has blocked them. You seem like you're are only accusing me for ownership, which I not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't question your timeline. I asked why was your timestamp on a comment different than the one in your text. It made things difficult to follow. If you think an admin here is going to take action based upon comments you and others made three months ago in conjunction with the ip user's current behavior, you got another think coming. I still don't see a problem with the ip user, other than you don't like his edits. What about them, still remains to be seen. His grammar is certainly better than yours.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @That man from Nantucket: I don't be making rude comments about my editing, I been editing Wikipedia longer than you have, and I know that failure to discuss your edits is considered disruptive. You clearly don't understand this issue here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to communicate is indeed a problem (reaching consensus is impossible without it (WP:CONSENSUS) when edits are challenged, restoring changes without discussion is also problematic, we have a good WP:BRD explanatory supplement about this). I however also see a lot of reverts of edits which do not appear problematic (not only edits from this IP address user), so I'm not sure what to say (owning attitude is already explained above, I'm not sure if this is what is happening, but it's not impossible, but I see no strong evidence of this through talk page warnings)... Many of the IP address editor edits appear to be copy-editing, which is not uncommon and rarely contentious. Some copy-editors have been blocked for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, like happened before for this IP address. —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @PaleoNeonate: I don't wanna be that editor who think they own a article, which they not. Most of the edits are not bad, but most of the changes essentially only contributed to corruption the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the editor was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Huyandrew99

    Huyandrew99 (talk · contribs) has been doing this for a while and has been blocked multiple times in the past, but now that he's doing it again, it's annoying us to the edge. For example, he keeps changing the Daytona 500 broadcaster at 2018 Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series from Fox to NBC because of Adam West's death (despite West having no association with NBC that I know of), a soapboxing case that has been happening for a few months, including on IP addresses. He and his IPs have been a topic of discussion at WikiProject NASCAR as well.

    Furthermore, he has also been repeatedly moving the Alabama 500 (fall) race article to "Thomas & Friends 500", claiming the race has been renamed it despite there being no announcement whatsoever from Talladega Superspeedway on a race sponsor for this year. Since being blocked three times has not made him stop, I think it's time to block him for good. Zappa⚡Mati 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • NASCAR-related pagemove vandalism immediately after getting off a two-week block for NASCAR-related vandalism? Past block for socking? User talk page with nothing but warning templates? Support indef. This editor shows every indication of being WP:NOTHERE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by disruptive editor Kautilya3

    Not actionable. The irony is not lost that an ip comes in screaming about abusing multiple accounts with a three year old diff and repeated references to a blocked editor. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Kautilya3 who has a history of abusing multiple accounts, is under ethnicity claims restrictions, shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and has been warned twice[96] [97] for edit warring has made a personal attack against @解放的高加索:. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks on anyone, even if they are banned/blocked users. 101.56.218.38 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The majority of the diffs you provided are from 2014. Do you have anything recent that needs to be addressed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, seriously. The one diff that's recent, the so-called personal attack, is mild comment about "people who live in glass houses". It makes me wonder who this IP editor is and why they have such a keen interest in taking up a blocked editor's battles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the IP is the blocked editor's second cousin, three times removed, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User threatens to hack into socks

    A hacked sock.

    @Oshwah: 2 users, namely User:(TIB557TTIB558RTIB559MTIB560HTIB561E) and User:(TIB590XTIB591TTIB592RTIB593MTIB594KTIB595HTIB596ETIB597CTIB598A) have threatened to hack the global locks and vandalise Wikipedia via an account that Oshwah blocked and deleted yesterday at 05:22(UTC). Please consider blocking these accounts indefinitely because they claim to be sockpuppets of 118 alex. 103.17.198.51 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth global locks can't be "hacked". New accounts can be created, of course. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated SPI Recreations

    The talk pages on these first two pages keep getting recreated by the LTA Gabucho181. I reached out to Oshwah, and he deleted and salted the first one. I don't know if anything can be done about the IP hopping, but can we take care of the second one since they moved to that page after the first one was salted? I listed the third one since that will be the next step for the IP to go to. You can see additional damage at the users talk page. Pinging Пугачов Иван Петрович in case he would like to add anything.

    I have zero familiarity with LTAs, so I am bringing it here. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately salting in this situation achieves nothing, as the vandal just moves to a new title that we haven't protected. In fact if anything it is better not to salt in this situation, because as long as the vandal is coming back to the same page title(s) that he or she has used before it's easy to watch them, but if he or she is forced to move to a new title that we don't know, we can't be watching it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 36.72.55.141

    36.72.55.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based in Indonesia has made a mass of edits today. The edits to BBC News (TV channel) and all other BBC date entries are vandalism and I have reverted them. I'm not qualified to comment on the numerous other changes - although they do appear to be incorrect. Should this user be blocked?

    He seems to be messing with dates, should I revert the rest of the changes? —JJBers 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, I just haven't the time to check all the "edits". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ The Manila Standard. "'Malaysia's new plans to undermine Philippine interests'". Retrieved May 19, 2015. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=799076567"