Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SoWhy (talk | contribs) at 08:38, 11 January 2018 (→‎Revdel request: I was about to do that...| archived). 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:Turkish air con is causing ANI trouble...

    User:Turkish air con has been adding useless content to this very page. The thought of it! I still don't understand how diffs work, but all you need to do is click "edit history" right up there. The edits I've noticed have mostly been about how his car stopped working in the middle of the road. Why's that on ANI? Not to mention the swearing... Could we have an admin over here, please? TomBarker23 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I already blocked them. Looks like the same vandal that had been posting nonsense on the page previously that lead to ANI being protected. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'm going off to support the suggestion for a new ANI filter. TomBarker23 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if an edit filter for this LTA is even possible. I can understand hesitating to protect ANI indef, but he'll keep coming back as long as an expiry date is there. Sro23 (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we even know who it is? --Tarage (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect (X) but he at least posts pertinent stuff, as opposed to the total logical disconnect we see. There's only a very small handful of LTAs I can think of who would use an autocon-buster to troll AN/I this way. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Just from the look of it, their content would have been better submitted to Not Always Right. --Auric talk 20:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Question regarding interaction bans

    Is linking to an edit by an editor who is party to an IBAN, which is obviously not an IBAN violation a breach of an IBAN? As in, is blatant block shopping a violation of an IBAN? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Typo fixed. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the second phrasing: I'd say "absolutely". Regarding the first, "Not necessarily, but likely so." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I thought I was going to talk about dropping sticks, until I saw what's going on here. There's no obvious violation here, but I think at one point the patience will start to wear down. Alex Shih (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You know, DS, if you don't want to be reported for IBAN vios, you could stop editing pages immediately after CWG... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes&diff=prev&oldid=818787054 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Still don't know what the IBAN policy is then Sarek? And I was pinged to that cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you were pinged to it, that's why you're not already blocked. However, most people under IBANs go out of their way not to appear to violate them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What Sarek said. Whether or not you were pinged is not the point. You cannot continue to keep commenting after them while complaining about them. This is a two-way interaction ban, and you also must exercise the same kind of sensitivity that you have been demanding. Alex Shih (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:IBAN: Editors subject to an IBAN are not permitted to: make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. - If you are under an IBAN and link to an edit by someone you are IBANed with, that is making reference to them. The exception would be where you are reporting what you perceive to be a violation in the correct forum. Almost all admins would also consider a request where a diff is provided as part of a 'Is this is a violation of the IBAN?' query legitimate. If said admin then said 'no' and its forumshopped until an admin says 'yes' then I would expect some form of extended discussion about it in the event of sanctions. If someone you are in an IBAN with is pinging you, it would depend on the circumstances. This is why general questions suck. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ecx2)Like I said, read the IVAN policy, you already got it wrong once. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so looked a bit further. Someone you are in an IBAN with linking to your edits and asking an admin is not a violation. Any more than you linking to their edits if you were querying if it is a violation would be. If a third party pings you to something (because you both edit in the same area) as long as you are not directly interacting, its not a violation. The whole point of an IBAN however is that you both stay away from each other. That almost always means, do not edit directly after them if you are both editing the same article lest accusations of stalking appear. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said Sarek needs to, he already blocked me once and had to unblick cos he made policy up on the fly. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, I took a look at the two interaction-banned editors in question here with the editor interaction analyser, looking only at edits made since their two-way IBAN was put in place. This was the result. It's not proof of a violation by any means, and I'm not saying a violation definitely took place, but to my uneducated eye it doesn't look like either editor has fully embraced the spirit of the IBAN. (For comparison, I also looked at five other IBAN'd editors over the same time period, and four out of five had 0 pages in common. The fifth only had large-scale discussion pages like ANI in common; no articles or article talk pages.) Marianna251TALK 17:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not particularly useful in this case due to the overlapping subject area and that one (for a significant period of their editing) was effectively a SPA. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; that's why I only looked at edits since the IBAN. I wasn't aware that one editor had such a narrow focus. Marianna251TALK 17:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a benighted observer here, but even if there's some reason for overlapping editing, the timing of, say, the first 5-10 interactions seem instructive to me, if not dispositive. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non-Administrative commitment: [1] @ Alex Shih I feel like someone is breathing down my neck and following my steps and right on my heels.[2] [3] P.S. I followed SarekOfVulcan (talk) to this page and this is what I wrote [4]. I only requested that I not be followed, as [5] this is tiresome, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Sorry... what the what??? EEng 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In straightforward terms: I had been TBAN by Cyber from posting on 'Patriot Prayer' pages due to my interaction with D/S. I went to Cyber's page to ask him if an image of The Proud Boys at a patriot prayer rally wearing their black polo shirt and yellow pinstripe unofficial uniform violated the TBAN and within 20 minutes that exact image ended up on 'Patriot Prayer' page mislabeled as Joey Gibson by D/S. This is now the second time that this is happened since the IBAN has been in effect, that I have posted to an administrator's page and within hours things that popped up on Wiki by D/S. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what's "stoping the stocking"? Sounds like something I'd ask the dry cleaner to do. EEng 11:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at all the images of the rally [8] and those of Joey Gibson from the rally [9]; why use my image of '3 Proud Boys' and (mis)-labeling it as Joey Gibson [10] within 20mins of my posting it on Cyber's TP? This is stalking but worse is the poor quality of the editing this stalking has caused. There were plenty of images of Joey Gibson at that rally, why use mine and do it incorrectly? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity: "stalking". -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I fixed my spelling error and was informed I should have used WP:HOUNDING to be more accurate. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, I'm pointing out three things. 1 Gilmore posting in this section violates the IBAN 2 Cyberpower's talk page is on my watch list, so no interactions have taken place. 3 It is not me following anyone, as is obvious given I was discussing The Root as a source on the Proud Boys article, and Surprise This block shopping needs to be stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, 4 Gilmore commenting on my edit to Patriot Prayer violates not only the IBAN, it violates his TBAN. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note -@ Alex Shih, the admission of actions taking actions based upon my posting to Cyberpower's Talking Page. I post to Cyber's page and actions are taken within 20 mins, clearly shows that the post is in reaction. IBAN [11] "A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other." I just want to be left alone, not followed or have my actions followed by a reaction within minutes of my posting. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban evasion

    In December, Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was topic-banned for 3 months from Israel-related pages. WP:TBAN says:

    "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:
    • weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

    Today, he removed and modified (and was reverted) several parts of the section "Views on antisemitism and Israel" in George Soros: [12], [13]. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This would certainly seem to be an up-and-down breach of the ban, but I want to hear an explanation from Avaya1 (talk · contribs) before looking at what action should be taken. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree that this appears to be a breach of the topic ban. Drmies was the administrator who imposed the topic ban. Perhaps he has a comment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    These are quite blatant. Thank you Cullen328. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely a vio of the topic ban, but I'm not sure what the correct next step is. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I was attempting to remove off-topic content about Steinmetz with this edit and Hungary. I was removing the non-Israeli content about Steinmetz and Hungary. The Israeli stuff I have left intact. The original section was written by me and is largely about Israel, this was back in May before my topic ban. There's since been added paragraphs about Steinmetz and extra parts about Hungary which is off-topic to antisemitism and Israel. Avaya1 (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether you wrote it yourself or not, as our topic bans do not currently have a feature to physically prevent users from editing in the banned areas, this is still a breach of your topic ban. I don't believe you maliciously breached the ban, but WP:TBAN is quite explicit. I'll let other admins decide what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In these edits, Avaya1 removed two (and modified one) pieces of text, which are directly related to Israel and contains word "Israel". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Lankiveil, Cullen328, Drmies, and Kudpung: What are the next steps? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, we could block! But it's been a few days, and they haven't done it again, so that would really be punitive, even if a pattern had been established, that this wasn't just a one-off. Or we could give Avaya1 a stern warning and say "if you do that again we will certainly block you". Cullen? Drmies (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I've been pinged: I also think the stern warning would be appropriate. Just because we can block doesn't mean we have to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think at this point a block would not be preventative. That being said, this violation should certainly be noted and logged so that it can be factored into the sanction for any future breaches. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    I have warned Avaya1 that any further violation of their topic ban will result in a block. Avaya1 has not edited in recent days. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aroniel2

    A Nazi fanboy User:Aroniel2 (106 edits since: 2009-05-09) posts raw links to Hitler speeches and vehemently racist and antisemitic blogs associated with the White Network full of articles like the "Holo Frauds & Quacks" and "the Jewish Problem and the HoloHoax". This one account better be blocked indefinitely as soon as possible. Poeticbent talk 04:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Aroniel2 (talk · contribs · count) : Gleiwitz incident: Difference between 3 revisions including [1] and [2]

    References

    1. ^ https://archive.org/stream/AdolfHitlerReturningFireOnPolandSpeech/1939_09_01Hitlerpoland_returningFireae_djvu.txt
    2. ^ https://carolynyeager.net/gleiwitz-%E2%80%9Cfalse-flag%E2%80%9D-incident-pure-fiction
    • Yeah, there was some undiscovered OR/SYNTH that this editor inserted, from as best I can tell, to tie fairly mainstream Catholic social teaching to Franco's National Catholicism. It looks like much of this editor's work involves a rather... unconventional view of the Church and fascism. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What you say is absolute nonsense. I post Hitler speech as EVIDENCE he did not mention the incident as excuse for his invasion or Poland. If he did mention it during his speech, please let me know. A Fact is a Fact and during his Speech he did not mention it. I say there is only one single source to the false flag theory, a man under arrest. That FACT is universally accepted, and noone else has found any other source to the theory. I mention there are historians that do not believe in the False Flag theory which is true as it is not universally accepted fact. Please let me know if Hitler used this incident in his declaration of war speech and I will erase my edit. I will be waiting. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aroniel2 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: User:Aroniel2 does not know where to stop. He just sent me a email from Wikpedia with the exact copy of the above (unsigned) post, with one extra line (which isn't here) reading: "Let people see all theories and all evidence. Do not try to brainwash people in any given ideology." He says (above) "there are historians" ... but cited antisemitic, Holocaust denying and racist spooks. And now, Aroniel2 is edit-warring like there was no tomorrow. Poeticbent talk 18:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gleiwitz_incident&type=revision&diff=819133541&oldid=819129375
    The reality that the "attack" on a German radio station by SS men dressed in Polish uniforms, who left behind dead men (taken from a concentration camp), also in Polish uniforms is generally accepted by all creditable historians as the deliberate creation of a false casus belli for the invasion of Poland. I have never seen any mainstream historian doubt it, and the amount of detail to back up the story is appreciable -- it is no more a "theory" than The Holocaust. Anyone who doesn't accept that as historical reality is living in a fantasy WP:FRINGE world, and their work on other subjects should be subjected to extremely close inspection by those familiar with the details of those subjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, anyone suggesting a site strongly involved in holocaust denial be used as a source probably should be WP:INDEF since at a minimum their understanding of WP:RS seems to far gone to be salvagable. Nil Einne (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor is also spamming to numerous articles their own interpretation of #2105 of the Catholic Catechism, using only a citation to the part of the Catechism, which does not support the interpretation provided, only the text. These have been removed by various editors, and the editor has been warned (by me) not to spam or violate WP:NPOV or add what is essentially unsourced information.
      They clearly need to have their edits kept an eye on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Admitted meatpuppetry and proxy editing for blocked users

    (non-admin closure) M.A. Martin blocked by Guy as NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    M.A. Martin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Excuse-me John from Idegon, could you explain to me what is this about, please ? I don't understand what "meatpuppetry and proxy editing" is, and you refer to your question about the use I made of "we", as I told you "we" referred to the friends who helped my collecting sources, among whom some of them have written articles on related subjects. Not any of them have ever been blocked from Wikipedia, if that's what you want to know, but blocked on Twitter, Facebook, our personnal computers, etc. And for any other question, I'll be happy to get advice and help from you and other administrators about the access to draft / sandbox about my article on Vanessa Beeley. Thank you very much !--M.A. Martin (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Twitter, right? Tornado chaser (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sure, Twitter, I'll correct at once. Thank you. But could you please explain to me what is this all about ? (I'm not a native English speaker) I'm working on very controversial and complicated subjects, directly linked on propaganda, and it's quite complicated, even with reliable sources from The Guardian and several main secondary sources... M.A. Martin (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not an admin, and am not involved in this issue, but from the diff provided it looks like concerns were raised about your use of the word "we", wikipedia policy requires that an account is used only by 1 person, and calling yourself "we" implies shared use. You have also been accused of meatpuppetry (recruiting a bunch of people who agree with you to sway consensus in a content dispute). Tornado chaser (talk)
    Thank you very much for your reply, Tornado chaser. Yes, indeed, we are a small group, outside of Wikipedia, to work together to collect sources and help each other, but when I first tried to make an account reflecting this "Challenge propaganda group", I was explained on Wikipedia (not here, in my mother tongue), that this could be seen as a group of pressure or lobby, and that an account had to be personnal (which was the case). When I explained where did my username came from, this was good for them, and they accepted my articles and helped me. Here on English Wikipedia, this was diferent, andI had to change my username to replace it by my personnal name (which took me quite long to understand). I've understood that I needed to be the only author of the article, with responsibility on what I write. Which is the case. But I thought I could mention the people who helped me gathering sources and preparing the subject of the article without any problem, because this is not on Wikipedia, but way before I published here (for instance, someone who speaks better English than me can help me correct a sentence, but not here in Wikipedia drafts, no, at home !).
    As for recruiting a bunch of people who agree with me to sway consensus in a content dispute, I don't know to tell anything like this about me. Anyway, even if I had this idea (but I don't, I don't think number matters, I think facts matter), I can't because I have no friends who have an account here, I was a complete beginner not long ago and I asked for much help on Wikipedia in my mother tong !

    Propaganda is really a complicated thing to deal with, but I really didn't think it would be the case here too... thank you very much for your explanations. talkM.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    John from Idegon I hope you can read all my explanations above and tell me wether it is a problem or not, please.M.A. Martin (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the concerns arose when you talked about blocked users it sounded like you were editing on behalf of others who were blocked from wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I understand better. Thank you. Tornado chaser This is not the case. I was just trying to explain my page was not an "attack" page, I am just a human rights defender, and I don't aim at attacking anyone, even a propagandist, and I wanted to explain ths were not our methods, not our ways of thinking when we gathered information and sources, this is the way of doing of propagandists. I also spoke about insults, harassment, hacking computers... this is not on Wikipedia ! Here, I even thought I could find help to restore the truth, which an Encyclopdy does, and I still hope it will be possible !M.A. Martin (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much Mendaliv for your answer. Yes, that's what I meant. Just to be precise, I didn't say I was editing on behalf on a group, just that this group helped me to gather information sources and think about the subject previously, because some of them share common interests with subjects that are linked to mine. What I write and publish is my own text (but that does not mean I couldn't ask help to correct a sentence to a friend before writing down here ?) (English is not my mother tongue). Am I the only one to do so ?
    As for your other concern, I fully understand it, it's better to have fears and be cautious on such subjects, because, yes, it is a very controversial subject. I said "propaganda" because itt was established as such, by main media. And as it deals with conspiracy theories, there are fake information that were proved, this is why I'm talking about restoring the truth, maybe it's not the good vocabulary, I don't know. But for a similar article in my mother tongue, I was helped so that it could fit the Wikipedia rules. I'd like to be helped here as well, but I was told by the administrator who deleted my article that I would be blocked if I continue, so I think I won't dare it, because it's important to me to be able to edit again in my mother tongue on several subjects, including this one.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made it clear on M.A. Martin's talk page that POV pushing regarding their chosen topic will not be permitted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Cullen328, yes, this was clear, and this is what I intended to do, I'd like to be able to discuss this and build the article with help, but I don't want to be blocked.
    Or if any of you are interested, I think you have access to my deleted article and sources (I have some more I can give you), you can also write an article on Vanessa Beeley. It would be great. Thank you.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment)@M.A. Martin: Yes it is ok to ask others for help and advice, you just can't give them your password to edit, ect. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thank you very much. No, sure, I won't, they don't even know how this works here, as for the help I asked it long before started my draft here. Now all I would need would be help from wikipedia editors to manage to write an article on this subject without being deleted and blocked, which until now doesn't really seem easy to achieve.M.A. Martin (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @M.A. Martin: When you respond to a comment on a talk page, please indent your response one more tab that the comment you're responding to. You do this by adding an additional colon (:). Thus if the comment you're responding to has no colons, your response should have 1, if it has 1 (or an asterisk) yours should have 2, etc. In this way the discussion is easier to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My concerns about meat and proxy have been addressed, but there remains WP:NOTHERE, for which there seems a clear case. John from Idegon (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, John from Idegon, I would have loved that you answered my questions above or that you would have told me what was the problem about. So, please, may I know why you think I am a doing clear case of WP:NOTHERE? You already claimed I "Admitted meatpuppetry", whih I did not. So please understand my question. What would be my aim, according to you, other than building an encyclopedia ? Why would articles on Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley would not be useful in Wikipedia and would not be useful for readers ? But if that's really alarming you so much, please read what I answered on my talk page, and you'll be happy to know that by now I've understood it'll be too complicated for me to struggle against your claims and reports, added to the ones of an other editor and of an administrator who denies my sources while acknowledging he hadn't read them all, or hadn't read them before deleting my article, so I prefer to give up. I can't say I'm happy about that, because is really think one of the role of an Ecyclopedia is to share information, and to help people findind neutral and unbiased information, which is more important because more difficult, on such subjects as current war propaganda, and I don't really see what English Wikipedia community nor readers will benefit from my giving up. I really think the only ones who will benefit of this are the one who defend war propaganda.M.A. Martin (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal abuse

    User:IcehouseCover has, over the last few days, repeatedly added original research at George IV State Diadem (16:20, 4 Jan, 20:47, 4 Jan, and 17:55, 7 Jan). Today, I posted a warning on his or her talk page ([14]), to which I received the following responses: "You're a twat" ([15]), and "you narrow minded twit … You'll die long before me, and I'll get my way eventually" ([16]). Firebrace (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You know it's a common practice to adjust currency values for inflation in articles? See WP:INFLATION. I've just done that for you at George IV State Diadem. I'm not saying the other editor was right (given the figures he or she was using didn't include an appropriate source per WP:INFLATION), but you weren't exactly right either. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Last time I saw WP:INFLATION it came with a warning: "Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research. If you yourself do not have economic training, then please consult someone who does before using this template". The warning was removed in November 2016 ([17]) without my knowledge. But can we have something done about this troubled user who seems to enjoy the prospect of my death because he wasn't "getting his way". Thanks. Firebrace (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firebrace, it is your responsibility to assume good faith of the other user when reverting something that is not clearly vandalism. Your first notice on the user's talk page was a level 3 warning about disruptive editing. Believe me, I know it's tiring to type out explanations instead of using templates. But you might get a better response if you revert once and offer a good-natured explanation before things escalate into an edit war.
    That being said, IcehouseCover is editing with the wrong mentality and needs a clue adjustment, IMO. --Jprg1966 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Firebrace describes himself as a "Western troll", "patronising jerk", and "sarcastic asshole". I was simply speaking the language he professes to use and understand. I am no Wikipedia editing expert; I felt my edit added value to the article. If there were a better way, a collaborative user might have explained how to achieve this. The "sarcastic asshole" did not chose this avenue.
    The first thing I did to contextualize the figures in the article was look up the calculated adjustments for inflation. Here nor there do I frankly care, but Firebrace, is an abusive editor, so received a complementary response from me which apparently sent him over the deep end crying and tattletaling.IcehouseCover (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just so you know in the future, IcehouseCover, we don't really do that sort of speaking the language he professes to use and understand, particularly not where it amounts to what would be considered abusive language in a professional environment. The statements on Firebrace's userpage actually appear to be something of a "trophy gallery" of instances where he was called unkind names in disputes. While I think that sort of thing is in poor taste, it's not my userpage.
    I do actually agree with you, by the way, that what you contributed to the article added value. The problem was that it needed to be supported by reliable sources. In this case, Firebrace actually knew about WP:INFLATION (though apparently didn't know it could be used for large capital figures). It would've been more helpful had Firebrace sought to explain things, say by linking to WP:INFLATION and giving his understanding of it, rather than just reverting. That said, telling Firebrace off didn't make things better.
    In any event, I think that you understand the situation, and I don't think you're going to go around hurling insults in light of the above. If so, there's not much else to do here and we can all go back to editing. I really don't think there's a need for sanctions in this case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time I will just sink to their level. Firebrace (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is precisely the wrong takeaway. There are a ton of dispute resolution mechanisms on Wikipedia that don't require anyone being blocked or reported to ANI. My (Non-administrator comment) advice is to use those whenever possible. --Jprg1966 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @IcehouseCover: When you add information to an article without a source, a common response is to be reverted. The correct reaction to this is not to edit war over it, nor to personally attack the editor who does so. The advice written to Firebrace above notwithstanding, what you said was not only a personal attack, but it indicated pretty severe battleground mentality over an exceedingly minor dispute over your addition of unsourced information (by the way, "I did the research myself" is literally WP:OR). Please try to stay cool and seek dispute resolution, even if you feel you've been treated unfairly.
    • @Firebrace: You were not in the wrong to revert unsourced information. However all that was necessary was a level one notice regarding adding unsourced information, or even a simple note asking for a source. By edit warring, threatening a block, and issuing a serious warning for "personal analysis or synthesis", you needlessly created a heated situation that directly led to a torrent of personal attacks. I'll be honest, I'd consider blocking if those comments were unprovoked, but the simple fact of the matter that we cannot ignore is that they were provoked. Swarm ♠ 20:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh goodness, every personal attack on Wikipedia is "provoked" – in the mind of the attacker. Firebrace (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was "provoked in the mind of" a respected and level-headed administrator (yes, we do have a few of them) as well. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Firebrace, you're funny looking. Natureium (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Saboteurest

    Saboteurest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is randomly reverting my edits (see here and here) and those of Joeyconnick (see here). It's clearly retaliation for Joey and I reverting their changes to Light rail in North America, which are in opposition to previous talk page discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I wasn't going to say anything but this is how my attempt to discuss the issue with the user went at Talk:Burnaby-class ferry § abbreviation or not. I can't speculate as to their original reason for the revert but I don't feel they are discussing the issue in good faith. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit was reverted by more than one editor. Then you went on and on about absolute nonsense that wasn't related to the topic. You claim that the abbreviation BC for British Columbia is "well known". Maybe it's well known in your home country of Canada, but try using it in France, or Brazil, or Algeria. It is not known worldwide. Saboteurest (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why did you perform this unjustified revert where you reversed my removal of a similar abbreviation? And why did you revert my lengthy edit at J Church, which consisted of well-cited history? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, guys, preferably don't use ANI as your one-stop solution. It doesn't even seem like you guys tried any sort of dispute resolution, a few arguments are bound to come around here, there, I don't quite see anything that exaggerates to the level of admin attention — this is merely a case of differing opinion. Let's cut to the core and the only thing I see is the battleground behaviour, we can come to compromise here, being my point. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Assistance requested reverting unsourced changes to Super Bowl LII

    (non-admin closure) No action needed as IP has stopped editing. --Jprg1966 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 68.192.253.189 is continuously making an unsourced change without looking at the whole paragraph in which they are editing. The Winter Olympics were never held in 2012. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Repeated Addition of Unsourced Material to List of Bible verses not included in modern translations.

    Our issue here is the repeated insertion of unsourced claims by Sussmanbern (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:V, which states, among other things, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Sussberman continues to ignore WP:V despite various reminders over a period now a month long of weeks.

    A Timeline

    At 12:51 17 December 2017, User:Sussmanbern was told by User:Dimadick about the importance of making sure that all new additions to the article have proper inline citations, in order to avoid having the material deleted. (There had been earlier conflicts, among other parties, over the addition of unsourced material to this article, which can easily be seen at the talk page). Here is the diff of Dimadick's statement: [18].

    Sussberman asked for a summary of the earlier conflicts, "so tI know what to avoid doing." [19]

    Reiterating Dimadick's point, I told Sussmanberg that the thing to avoid doing was the addition of unsourced material to the page: [20] (31 December).

    Sussmanberg assured me that they "can appreciate the problem of additions without source citations." [21].

    At 04:18, 7 January 2018, I took a look at the article and found it to be filled with uncited claims. I removed a number of them: [22]

    At 19:50, 7 January 2018, Sussberman left a notice at my talk page announcing his ownership of the Wikipedia page, and that I am not allowed to interfere with anything he writes, "until Feb 14, 2018 . . . PLEASE DO NOT TAMPER WITH MY WRITING WHILE I AM WRITING."

    At 19:54, Sussberman complained that their Second Amendment rights were being violated at the talk page: [23].

    At 20:22, Sussberman posted a statement of WP:OWNERSHIP directly in the article text itself: [24].

    At 20:28, I replied at my talk page, notifying Sussberman about the contents of policy pages WP:OWN and WP:V. [25]

    Sussberman ignored my reply.

    At 20:35, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [26].

    At 1:01, 8 January 2018, Sussberman added more unsourced material to the page: [27].

    At 1:22, Sussberman reverted my previous edit, restoring a great deal of unsourced content despite the previous repeated reminders about this: [28].

    At 1:36, I wrote a second reminder, this time on the talk page: [29].

    In the interests of avoiding an editing war, I asked Sussberman whether they were now willing to abide by WP:V, or whether I should seek dispute resolution. I have received no reply, and Sussberman continues editing away.

    I request that administrators take some kind of action — it doesn't matter to me exactly what — to ensure that the addition of unsourced material to this article does not continue. I do not want to edit-war here, so I can't just keep removing the stuff myself. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Having received Alephb's comments, I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can. Sussmanbern (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even within the last few hours, even as I was adding citations, Alephb was still erasing my stuff - I found I was collecting citations for text that no longer existed, and he took particular pains to repeatedly delete a quotation WITH citation that I went to some effort to find. I am ready to dump this whole project. Sussmanbern (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps, I would be happy to copy the entire deleted text to the talk page or any piece of your userspace that you specify, so that you can add citations to it and then re-add it to the article. If I deleted anything that was properly cited, that was certainly a mistake, and if you just show me the quote, I would be more than happy to add it back in myself, if you like. Alephb (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is worth noting, at this point, that the continued addition of uncited material by Sussmanbern has continued even after the beginning of this ANI thread: [30]. The added material there speaks to the motives of the translators of various post-1880 Bible translators and editors. He added that to a previously correctly-cited quote from a writer in 1832. The quote is cited -- the additional material about what people were thinking several decades later is not. WP:V is still not being followed. In the interest of not edit-warring, I'm simply going the leave the uncited material there, but I would urge Sussmanbern to delete his claims about the motives of these translators until he can find a reliable source backing up the claims. And I would ask Sussmanbern to substantiate his claim that I removed a properly cited claim, or to strike out the accusation. One of or the other. Alephb (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another edit by Sussberman, still as this ANI goes on: [31]. It purports to give the "Reason" that modern Bible translations omit a particular verse, but does not cite any source that confirms that the "reason" given is in fact the reason the modern translators have omitted this verse. This is also a violation of WP:V. I'm surprised to see this behavior going on MID-ANI. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And . . . here's a third WP:V violation, also made while this ANI goes on: [32]. The unsourced part is, "Both verses 44 and 46 are duplicates of verse 48, which remains in the text. Verses 44 and 46 are both lacking in א,B,C,L,ƒ<super>1</super>, and some mss of the ancient versions, but appear in somewhat later sources." What somewhat later sources? Why no citation? How difficult is this? Alephb (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have a fourth WP:V violation: [33]. It makes an uncited claim about what motivates modern translators, about what is written in the original handwriting of a particular manuscript, uncited claims about which manuscripts are more, or less, ancient, and an uncited claim that uncited editors "seem confident." Alephb (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a fifth: [34]. It alleges that several books have been written on a particular passage, without citing any books written on that passage. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's number six: [35]. It alleges things about "most modern versions" and their treatment of two passages, without a supporting citation. It also says the passages are supported by a "wide variety" or uncited sources, and the uncited claim that "there are strong reasons to doubt that the words were part of the original text of the Gospels." Alephb (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's number seven: [36]. It alleges that "some Italic mss" include a particular verse. No source is cited. Alephb (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The "Reasons" that Alephb says are unsourced cite mss listed in the critical editions of the Greek NT mentioned by name in my Intro to the article (Souter, Nestle-Aland, etc.), having mentioned them anyone can find the relevant verses. As for not specifying "some Italic mss" and the like, these are (1) recondite and (2) the usual citation forms involve a complicated typography, often with layers of superscripts; as this article is intended for beginners in this topic (non-beginners would not need this article) it was not my goal to baffle the reader. Again the specific mss can be found in the critical editions I named. I had said in my Intro that I would cite only "four or five" of the leading mss evidence for inclusion or exclusion, and those motivated to dig deeper can look it up in the named critical editions. Listing all the mss evidence, including versions and patristic sources, as appears in those editions, would make this article very bulky, require some difficult typographic tricks, and make the article less reader-friendly. I would like to emphasize that this article lay fallow - useless and unrevised - for more than five years until I saw it a couple of weeks ago. Even Alephb had not attempted to improve it in those five years. But once I started, he could not contain himself for as little as five days. I am ready to let him roll this boulder up the mountain, while I play the critic. And could someone please ask him to stop misspelling my name. Sussmanbern (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the place to resolve your content disputes, that should happen on the article talk page, or in Dispute Resolution. Here, only behavioral issues are considered, and Alephb has presented fairly compelling evidence of your ownership behavior. I have left a comment on your talk page to explain in further detail why that is a problem, and why not editing collaboratively can lead to being blocked from editing. Please read that and the links it includes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is asking you to list every italic manuscript. It's just that, when you restore text that has been removed for not being sourced, we need an inline citation confirming that "some manuscripts" say the one thing or another. Just name whatever source you're copying the claims out of in a footnote. And likewise, when you make claims about the motives of particular people (some still living) you should find reliable sources for those claims as well. That would work fine. I can quote the wording about inline citations in WP:V again if that would help.
    The accusation that I made no efforts to improve the article prior to you showing up is false.
    Speaking of accusations, I am still waiting for you to show us the diffs of the properly cited quote that you say I "repeatedly" removed. Either that, or I would ask you to strike out the accusation. One or the other. Alephb (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sussmanbern: Have you considered drafting your changes in your sandbox or userspace? I hope that you are planning to add sources to the content as you said (I am in the midst of adding citations to the text that he deleted. I am trying to find and transfer citations and links as fast as I can.) - taking you at your word, drafting in userspace first would resolve this. Seraphim System (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I give up. This article was seriously neglected and I was a volunteer trying to improve it, but ingratitude wins out. I leave it to Alephb to finish the article to his satisfaction. Sussmanbern (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are serious about letting this one go, I think that resolves our problem. Given Sussmanbern's statement that they are no longer interested in working on the article, I would assume that it would not be considered edit-warring if I waited a day or two and then stripped all non-verifiable content out of the article. Given that the "other side" has thrown in the towel, and there's now no one left to edit-war with. Alephb (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been indefinately blocked for threat of violence. I recommend we close this discussion. Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually he wasn't complaining about his 2nd Amendment rights being violated in that diff. I've blocked indef for a clear threat of violence. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Good eye. How'd we all miss that one? --Tarage (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider that a legitimate threat of violence, and a indefinite block seems harsh, and unwarranted. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no way in hell I'm letting "I'm gonna shoot you for reverting me" stand, whether it's "legitimate" or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, had he said: "I'm going to shoot you for reverting me", then it would have been a good block. Nice straw man. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if you wouldn't summarize that diff the way I just did, then how would you summarize it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have summarized it at all. I would have asked him what the hell he meant. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how much you WP:WIKILAWYER about it, there is only one possible interpretation of "this is why the Second Amendment exists" in that context. We don't give people a "get out of making a naked threat of violence free" card just because they don't use specific words to do it. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one Wiki-lawyering is you, which I understand, as AN/I is filled with admins defending the indefensible, lest their own infallibility one day be called into question. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that casting of aspersions, I don't believe this conversation can go anywhere productive, so I'm out. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given how obviously confused this user is about so much else, did it occur that he could have the 1st and 2nd Amendments confused, lamenting interference with his perceived right to free speech here? I ask this having more than once heard an (obviously confused) individual state: "the 1st Amendment grants us the right to bear arms". It just seems incredibly unlikely that this user would make such a giant leap from frustration to threats of murder so quickly. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit on my talk page, where the editor says that they are "very angry", and claims that Alephb deliberately sabotaged their work, would seem to be pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention revoking talk-page access immediately, allowing the user no chance to even explain what was meant. I guess that was a prophylactic measure; less chance the user can complain about it if you shut them up preemptively. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, the user appealed the block and is currently able to edit. Funny how that works.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's anything but funny. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Joefromrandb - Haven't you learned anything yet? Well, you didn't learn anything four years ago, and maybe you didn't learn anything two months ago. You appear to have jumped into this controversy that you were not originally involved in, just to dump on an admin or something. Four years ago you were asked to try to be less provocative. Two months ago OR and NYB made a last plea with you to try to change your behavior when Tomstar81 had requested arbitration. I requested that ArbCom take the case, not merely to deal with you, but also to define a procedure for dealing with editors who poke you, like poking a bear, and then try to blame you. However, in this case, you just came running into this conflict like a bear on a tear. This conflict didn't involve you, and you should have left alone, and, if you can't learn to leave things alone sometimes, you will wind up in a bearcage, known as an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: I think you need to be less trigger happy. There's no way that statement deserved an indefinite block. Paul August ☎ 21:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have seriously contemplated an indef if I had seen it. That kind of implication is totally unacceptable here. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a blatant threat of violence and was dealt with appropriately. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan: Is there anything you feel you can say about why this block was lifted? I ask because it does not seem obvious to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    He was unblocked by User:Yunshui, who could perhaps shed some light on this, as I too am quite curious. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to do so. The UTRS appeal made it clear that this was basically intended as a very poor-taste attempt at humour, not a deliberate threat of violence. The editor has said that they will not repeat it, and has also stated that they will step away from the List of Bible verses... article, which also assuaged my concerns about future edit warring. I checked with Sarek via email, and on getting his agreement, lifted the block, as it was no longer serving a purpose (the behaviour which cause the block is not going to be repeated). Yunshui 雲水 08:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable, thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yunshi: Thanks for that explanation. I hope that the editor's promises hold up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that threats of violence results in being blocked for a shorter time-period than someone who violated 3RR once, I would like to take this opportunity to request an indefinite IBAN. I have been threatened not only with violence, but with more mundane retaliation as well: [37], and user who made the threats has not, as far as I can tell, offered any assurances that they will not carry them out. I think under these circumstances, an IBAN is warranted. And I'm not saying that because I want the user punished. I do not give the slightest shit whether the ban is one-way or two-way. If the user will not give me some assurance that I won't be retaliated against, I request that the community does so. Alephb (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the comments above, I'm going to take the assertion that there are no outstanding threats now at face value. Alephb (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least for myself and as of right now, I consider the personal threats issue resolved. What is not resolved is the continued personal attacks: i.e., [38], which was written just a few hours ago. But progress comes in steps. Alephb (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alephb: I don't think that S's final remark comes close to being a personal attack. It was snide, and completely unnecessary -- I've suggested to him that he strike it for those reasons -- but not a violation of WP:NPA. I think it would behoove S. to mind his P's and Q's considering that he just had an indef block lifted, but that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you are uninvolved, there's a good chance you have a more reasonable opinion on this than myself. Fair enough. Alephb (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential COI and disruptive editing

    TheCorageone1 seems to be a WP:SPA which was created to solely edit Defiant Wrestling. He has been an extremely disruptive editor and continues to add information to the article which goes against the stubify result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling. He was twice been asked on his talk page about potential COI, including once here [39] which provided evidence that they did declare themselves the owner of the logo in question, which would make them affiliated. He has not responded yet continues to edit the page. Despite the AfD on the initial article they started three spin off articles which all resulted in delete at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Championship, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Women's Championship, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Hardcore Championship. Despite the delete closing result, the information was merged and redirected by this user. We now also have 27 redirects to this page [40] and a template filled with redirects Template:Defiant Wrestling Champions.

    All of this for a wrestling promotion who barely passes GNG if at all. Of the 41 references currently on the page, 12 of them are YouTube, 5 are WP:PRIMARY, and 9 are from cagematch (which is an RS for stats but not for notability). This user has clearly not done anything to benefit the purpose of the stubify, only to fluff the article. - GalatzTalk 15:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that posting this here has gotten the user to stop editing the article as he has not made any edits in the past couple days, however some assistance on the matter would still be appreciated. Thanks - GalatzTalk 23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to chime in to back Galatz up. Corageone1 has been the main player here but this article has had a problem with other SPAs in the past. It would be helpful if others could add Defiant Wrestling to their watchlists to look for disruptive activity.LM2000 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthistorian1977 and NPR right

    Primefac (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Radiation15

    I previously highlighted issues with this editor, and Radiation15 was blocked 36 hours for adding unsourced content. After Radiation15 added more unsourced content, I reverted it and offered to help find sources if necessary. This follows prior offers of help from others. Instead of taking up the offers, he replied, "all you do is sniff cocaine". He added more unsourced content after this, so I warned him again. His reply was, "NinjaRobotPirate, go fuckin die. Besides you’re not a reliable source either. All you do is sniff cocaine and pleasure yourself with porn." I decided to just try to ignore it. However, he has begun edit warring to restore unsourced content at List of Columbia Pictures films (diff #1, diff #2). Can someone please indefinitely block this editor for disruption and personal attacks? Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute. - The Bushranger One ping only
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    and now RickinBaltimore is restoring the unsourced production companies? With some note about the release dates? The release dates are not in contention. The fact that Columbia Pictures is the production company is the contentious statement here. This is getting immensely frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NRP, I'm looking into this now, if I'm incorrect, I'll revert. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am really frustrated that a member of Arbcom is edit warring with me to restore unsourced, contentious content. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The movie site ITSELF lists Black Rock. I'm not edit warring, I'm actually trying to get the sourcing needed for the article and trying to improve it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on your talk page, we require a reliable source to identify the production companies, not a logo on an official website. Interpreting what a logo means from a primary sources is original research. I explained this in the copious messages I wrote on Radiation15's talk page, which you apparently didn't read in your zeal to revert me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    how about this from the New Indian Express, which itself was from AFP? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm sure that's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with Radiation15 telling me that I snort cocaine and adding unsourced content. I see the fact that he insulted me means nothing to you, and you'd rather argue with me over content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That would have been a more-useful complaint a month ago, when those edits actually happened. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not about who is "right" or "wrong" about that Columbia Pictures list. The issue is that we have an editor who has continued to add unsourced content (e.g. [41], [42]) after being asked not to, and after being given a final warning on this in December. And who has responded to criticism over this with personal attacks. A member of ArbCom has come and cleaned up the mess on one occasion but I don't really see the positives in this editor's ongoing participation. I can't see that he was ever warned for those personal attacks, so I'll do that now. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 22:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ford motor company

    flighttime ruined my editing that im trying to improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitopavlovivit (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Three problems that I see, @Vitopavlovivit:
    1. You did not notify FlightTime that a discussion is open at ANI which is about this user. You are always required to notify a user if you report them to ANI.
    2. Your edits to the Ford article were problematic and wrecked a table at the bottom of the page. FlightTime was right to revert and even noted in the edit summary you were editing in good faith.
    3. ANI is not the right venue for this. You have not even attempted to communicate with the user about this issue. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jprg1966: Thank you for the ping. It seems my edit and summary is not being challenged, if not ping me and I'll reply. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-wiki legal discussion about an editor

    Sock blocked, if anyone thinks the link requires rev-deletion they know how, if anyone reporting an issue thinks it *may* require rev-deletion, please follow instructions at WP:REVDELREQUEST. Its pretty certain that this link has had far more publicity here on one of the most watched Wikipedia administration pages than it did on the page where it was originally posted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    I reverted this today which is a notification of this thread, started by a banned user. Can appropriate action be taken please. CassiantoTalk 10:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarity you're asking for the editor who made that comment to be blocked as a sock of a banned editor? Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, who cares what I'm "asking for"? I'm here to report a legal discussion against one of our editors by a banned user. What those with tools do with the evidence I have posted above is up to them. CassiantoTalk 11:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, if you're asking for the discussion to be revdeleted due to the external link, you've made things a lot more complicated by reposting it here as we will first need to redact it from your post, then revdelete any edit between when you first posted it, and when it was redacted. If you do not feel that the link has to be deleted, this is not an issue. I have left the link for now, since it remains unclear if you feel it should be revdeleted, but if you do, please either redact the link here yourself, or let someone else do it for you. That is one of a number of reasons why it matters what adminstrative action you're asking for, but probably the most important one as the longer the link remains here, the more that will need to be revdeleted. (As it stands, helped by the time I suspect, there have been no edits to this page other than by you and me relating to this. But it's unlikely this will be the case 12 hours from now.) Incidentally, it isn't simply up to administrators, the community can, and often does on a course of action rather than it simply being up to individual administrators (or even administrators as a group). Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people should be using their own common sense rather acting upon mine. CassiantoTalk 11:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am already using common sense. If I felt it needed to be revdeleted, I would have redacted the link myself. I did not do so since I do not feel it does. However you are entitled to your own POV, and if you feel it should be revdeleted, it would be better to redact now, while we as a community decide whether this is warranted. There's no much more I can do other than to offer advice on what should and should not happen.

    Personally I feel that the best course of action would be to simply quietly block the editor assuming that it's clear they area sock by unilateral admin action, and then close this per WP:DENY. The evidence does look very strong even knowing next to nothing about the likely sockmaster, particularly [43] when combined with the various comments so frankly, if I had the administrative bit, I would have blocked the editor already while seeking clarification on what else you felt was warranted.

    But from the tone of your comments, you seem to think this is a much bigger deal than that. I'm not personally seeing any "legal discussion about an editor". All I saw is some silly commentary about what another editor should do, specifically suggesting that they should not take legal action but should instead do other stuff. However you apparently feel differently, so there's even more reason why I'm not a good judge of whether or not the link needs to be revdeleted or any other possible action. I mean from my POV it isn't even really an attack on any other editor, except maybe a silly broadside on anyone who commented in that ANI discussion, and a minor dig on the community as a whole.

    However as said, as you seem to think the external discussion is a much bigger deal than that. But unless either you or someone who feels the same offers an explanation, there's little those of us who don't feel the same can do. And so in the absence of an admin feeling the same who happens to notice this discussion, I can't see anything is likely other than my suggested course of action. (I.E. A quite block and the closure of this thread.)

    Or to put it a different way, common sense tells people like me that all we should do is what I already suggested. Since you seem to want something far more, we need some explanation of what your common sense tells you, or it's simply not going to happen. In which case, instead of this lengthy aside, this discussion could have been simply ended with a simple confirmation from you that's all that was desired while we wait for an admin to notice. Ultimately we are not mind readers, so we cannot know why your common sense told you it was such a big deal that wanted something undefined but far more unless you tell us since our common sense tells us something different.

    In any case, my common sense tells me there's nothing more to be gained from engaging in this further. If and when you offer an explanation of what additional action your common sense desires and why, I wish you luck in getting it.

    Nil Einne (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A potentially sensitive topic should be communicated behind the scenes, such as by emailing your most trusted admin, rather than doing so where the whole world can see it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted in good faith and hoped that owing to the allegation, it would be dealt with promptly. The drama has been made worse by those wanting "clarification" but not necessarily needing it, especially in light of them not even being an admin. I should've known better. CassiantoTalk 14:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Next time, if any, you'll know to take it behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Maximiliano Korstanje

    etc.

    Maximiliano Korstanje is an Argentine sociologist. A small number of IPs and account s have extensively edited his article, adding much resume inflation which has since been rolled back, and also editing numerous other articles to add his viws primary sourced from his own publications, again rolled back.

    Today I blocked 190.104.232.132, after the IP reinserted another mention of Korstanje primary-sourced to his published work. I blocked for:

    I think it may be time for a formal ban on the person behind these IPs and accounts. Style and meta-commentary makes it unlikely it's more than one person. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: just also blocked 181.90.148.76 for the same crap. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Pyrope

    A trout to Prisonermonkeys for this waste of time. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

    A recent discussion at WT:MOTOR has devolved into mud-slinging by Pyrope in which he has repeatedly called me a "blowhard" simply because I did not immediately respond to his comments in the way that he would have preferred, even after I took the diplomatic route. Now, referring to someone as a "blowhard" is fairly tame but it is a clear violation of WP:PERSONAL and disappointing to see from someone who takes pride in his knowledge of Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately, I have come to expect this from Pyrope; I feel that he adopts a condescending attitude towards people who disagree with him and can be very hypocritical at times. Given that he has shown no contrition here, it's time for an ANI. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Beware of WP:BOOMERANGs. I suggest you go find a mediator for this lame dispute. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    G;day. Gotta love the hypocrisy of this move. Over a period of several years Prisonermonkeys has engaged in a pattern of frankly obnoxious behaviour toward other editors. Mostly this stems from a complete inability to debate and accept others' point of view, and a stubborn assertion that they are in the right even when other editors provide sourced evidence that this isn't the case. They attempt to browbeat and chastise others for their behaviour, but when their own behaviour is called into question they usually go on a tear of blue-link wikilawyering, which unfortunately in many cases merely exposes their own ignorance of the actual substance of Wikipedia's guides and policies. Surprise, surprise, this is the case again in the latest dispute, but it is only the very latest in a long line. It is a pattern of behaviour that is beyond tiresome, and has become actively disruptive, often consuming many person days of other editors' time in attempting to resolve a dispute, but almost always in vain. In this particular case I think that "blowhard" is likely the mildest term I can think of to describe their behaviour, and frankly I stand by it. Pyrope 16:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show us evidence of an admin telling you that it's okay for you to break the rules if you think you're justified in doing it. Or let me save you the trouble by pointing out that you can't show that evidence. This is the problem: you're a hypocrite. You hold yourself to a different standard of behaviour to everyone else. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called a strawman argument. Go look it up. At no point have I ever claimed special privileges or abilities. For many years now you have been the epitome of a disruptive WP:IDHT editor, forever miring multiple other editors in pointless, circular, meaningless arguments. You keep thinking you have pulled off some great feat of logic and reasoning, only to have another editor (not just me!) pull its foundations to pieces. When that happens you change tack, argue that black is white, misquote Wikipedia policy pages, besmirch all those who point out your fundamental duplicity, and off we go again. I've just got fed up with it. You presence here makes Wikipedia a significantly less fun place to spend my free time, and if you somehow feel that I am "attacking" you in simply not rolling over and letting you carry on your disruptive behaviour you then I can't really help you. Pyrope 20:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to claim it. It's evident in your behaviour. You clearly think you're justified in launching a personal attack which means that you actually have been given a free pass by the admins or you're a hypocrite. Since the admins don't give people a licence to break the rules on a whim, it's obviously the latter. The least you can do is acknowledge that you launched a personal attack instead of acting as if this is some inconvenient distraction that you can talk your way out of. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well firstly, thanks for conforming to type. So now I don't have to find proof for you because it is implicit in my behaviour, is it? That'll be one of your quick switches then. The besmirching is right there too. As for the hypocrisy, one aspect of your behaviour that I haven't complained about is your own propensity toward, as you might put it, "personal attacks". My complaints stem directly and explicitly from your obstructive and disruptive behaviour on talk pages. If you are going to start throwing around personal slurs such as "hypocrite" then have the decency to know what it means. Pyrope 20:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you don't have to find proof of your behaviour because I've done it for you. It's ironic that you criticise me for not providing evidence but then ignore it when I do. Are you really so arrogant that you think you can ignore this? You made a personal attack and now you cannot even acknowledge that you did it. I can only conclude from this that you think the rules apply differently to you and I'm wondering what you're basing this on. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another strawman, cute. You asked me for "evidence of an admin telling you that it's okay for you to break the rules", remember? As I have never claimed that I am of course unable to comply. If you read that into my behaviour then that's on you, and is rather for you to prove and not me. I am not sure how a blue-link to the original post on this board (all of, what, six inches up my screen... odd) helps your cause here. I am not ignoring evidence because you haven't provided any of anything other than the fact that I don't particularly like you. This much I knew and so, I assume, do the other people reading this. Pyrope 20:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it was not obvious, all I am trying to do here is get you to acknowledge that you made a personal attack. Since you are unwilling or unable to do that, I would like you to show me why WP:PERSONAL does not apply in this instance. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments were related directly to your actions. If you don't like people thinking of you in that way, don't behave that way. Pyrope 21:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this is an issue, it seems a very minor one at best i.e. not something for which there's any chance of anything happening at ANI. If you're claiming this is enough of a long term problem to warrant action, you're going to need to provide evidence. We can't rely on what you've "come to expect". Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The productivity of this thread can be modelled by the function y = -(x^3 + 7b) where x is the number of comments placed in this thread, and b is the number of respondees to it. It is unlikely that this trend will change. Drop the sticks and walk away. This isn't sufficient for even a warning. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    By my calculations, including my comment, Y currently stands at -2232. Cheers all! Dumuzid (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Blowhard" is a pretty harmless epithet, Prisonermonkeys, and I'm no admirer of your own "diplomatic route" either, as I saw it on WT:MOTOR. If I myself had asked repeatedly for sources, as Pyrope did, and you had tap-danced around it ("Don't interpret my failure to provide sources just now as an inability to provide sources"), I'd be irritated too, and might possibly have called you a blowhard, or more likely a filibusterer. Don't be annoying and then expect administrators to support an ANI report about a so-called personal attack. As for your repeated references to the "rules", Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I'll close this waste of time now. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Blocking !vote going on at WP:COIN

    Not an incident. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management. Admin input would be welcome. Please comment there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI is for reporting incidents, admin attention to other threads at AN. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 17:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Kevinwoverstreet

    Stale enough to make dwarfbread look edible. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user's entire contribution list consists of self-promotion that has been repeatedly reverted. They also created the page [[Kevin Overstreet] (speedy deleted both for copyvio and for non-notability.) An edit-block might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:5A40:E7:5862:4EB3:95A:369 (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It might, if they had edited since last May... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Legal threat on Igor Durlovski

    They don't come much clearer than this. Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    per this diff. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for the unambiguous legal threat and the disruptive editing - TNT❤ 20:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Three, count them, three minutes. Could be a little more efficient, don't you think;) -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:MizukaS

    Blocks avoided, editors will use talk page for a week. AnimeDisneylover95 reminded it's not a good idea to bring reports to both WP:ANEW and WP:ANI when their own editing is breaking policy. --NeilN talk to me 04:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Earlier today a user by the name of MizukaS is fighting over an issue on the Cristina Vee page on NOT allowing to have any miscellaneous roles on her table. I explained to him about it but he refuses to make an agreement and even responded way out of line with this edit See footnote: do not include additional voices. Some don't even have any reliable sources. Also, don't "strike 1" me. You're not a mod, so don't even try to threaten me.

    And Here are the reverts made by this user.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [44]
    2. [45]
    3. [46]
    4. [47]
    5. [48]

    Honestly I don't know what to do with him/her and continues to remain unreasonable over resolving an issue that's been going on since last year's incident regarding having additional voices or others on the actor's pages: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_69#Inclusion_of_additional_voices_in_anime_voice_actor_articles.

    While he is new to this issue he refuses to accept having the background voices on her page regardless If I put in the sources. And this is all from the talk page: "Various_voices"_is_too_vague_for_inclusion. I'm in a Pickle I'm not asking for a suspension or block but I find him to be VERY unreasonable on coming up with a solution!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems to me that perhaps, you both are engaging in an edit war? Please try using the talk page. I have requested a temporary page protection. House1090 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • AnimeDisneylover95, you should edit using reliable sources, not Tweets by the subject. While we're on the topic, typically those articles are nothing but lists--resumes, that is. They are a disgrace to Wikipedia, and this isn't the worst of em. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AnimeDisneylover95: You are required to notify MizukaS on their talk page that they are mentioned here. --Jprg1966 (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    First and foremost, I'm male. Please use male pronouns only. In any case.... Well, you've done it, ADL. And what's more, you've only provided one side of the story. Allow me to fill in the rest. So let's start with the factor that you've been notably hostile at me over a subject you do not wish to discuss. Yes, we all have topics that we'd rather avoid getting involved in if it can be helped, but you seem to want to get involved in the most trivial aspects of an article. I think your behavior in this discussion (an attempt made by me to set aside our differences) and the diffs that I am about to list below suggests that you are someone that cannot stay calm.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    One thing that I don't understand is why ADL is yelling at my face about this. I even referenced the footnote in the template for him to see, but he just refuses to have any form of discussion at all. I clearly explained my perspective on why extremely vague tweets should be excluded, but it seems clear to me that ADL continues to refuse communicating calmly. I also read the discussion he linked me, and honestly, if the consensus from that discussion is so clear, why isn't it a policy yet?

    There is a huge difference between including additional voices that are listed in the credits roll, and one that is only supported by a mere tweet. I only removed all the additional voice credits because there is a footnote in the template that says that we should exclude all of them. In any case, what I'm advocating for is not the exclusion of all self-pub Twitter sources, but for additional voice credits that are supported only by a tweet, and nothing else, to be removed. In fact, judging by that tweet, it's extremely vague as to what role the subject is even involved with. And due to its vagueness, it could very well be a crew role, and not a voice role. I challenged ADL on this aspect, and asked him whether or not he could verify how the subject was involved. Of course, he just ignores me and keeps spouting more of his flames.

    PS: That "strike 1" thing is something you pulled, ADL. I find it very offensive that you think you could act like an admin and boss me around just because you don't agree with someone. I have made attempts to try to resolve this peacefully, but I'm afraid it might be vain, unfortunately. MizukaS (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quite simply, use reliable sources, 95 and a tweet is not that. House1090 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @AnimeDisneylover95 and MizukaS: You're both past WP:3RR. Would you like a block or to refrain from editing the article for a week and use the talk page only? --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I would prefer to just refrain from editing the article for a week (Jan 18). And I would like to discuss the matter civilly using just the article's talk page. MizukaS (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not want a block today over what happened today, I just got frustrated today with MS over an issue on just one "tweet" on the Cristina Vee page regarding a role on a show she was involved in. The thing is it is the same "rinse and repeat cycle" I've been seeing regarding "Additional voices" and "Tweets" not allowed on this site be brought up again ever since it was mutually resolved back in June of last year. I had a lot of exhausting conflicts many users and admins in the past, many of which I have been giving warnings and resolutions. But to be honest I just want to just resolve this issue already, I'm very exhausted as of today--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • NeilN I feel a block is necessary at this point. I've been keeping an eye on them and it is pretty messy. Best, House1090 (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • House1090 & NeilN, I don't want to have a block, I just got frustrated today with MS that the issue over just one "tweet" on the Cristina Vee page is the same "rinse and repeat cycle" I've been seeing regarding "Additional voices" and "Tweets" not allowed here from June of last year be brought up again. I had a lot of exhausting conflicts many users and admins in the past, many of which I have been giving warnings and resolutions. But to be honest I just want to just resolve this issue already, I'm very exhausted as of today.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AnimeDisneylover95: I'll take this as agreement that you will not edit the article for a week. And remember, there's no hurry to get content in or out. If you're frustrated, please look at WP:DRR for other options to bring more eyes to the dispute. --NeilN talk to me 04:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jim1138

    This User insists on removing my edits concering an article on Urinary Cathetization, despite that it is well known in the medical community that the procedure is carried out as a sterile procedure. (In fact, all the instructional material I can find on the material explicitly states that sterile technique applies, from youtube on up to virtually every other site that has material on the subject matter.) I therefore edited and inserted a citation needed tag in lieu of the reference, as I could not find a non-paid reference to cover the subject matter adequately and simplisticly enough for the needs of most non-technical readers. I have requested the user to stop modifing my edits without discussing revisions on the article talk page first. The User appears to be using policies incorrectly, namely WP:verfiablity and WP:Burden while ignoring WP:Consensus, and the policy concerning the citation needed tag. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • I do not see what Jim is supposed to have done wrong. What I did see in your edits is that you frequently fail to cite sources, that you cite primary sources, and that you think totally unreliable sources (like this one) are acceptable. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another example of unsourced content. Or is it wp:OR? Vicarioius liability Nice edit summary btw: Edit to discuss criminal law ramifications. Please do not modify this edit without discussing on the article Talk page and first obtaining consensus. Jim1138 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Karma-rang in 3... 2... 1... Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 07:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Amazing

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

    It just never ceases to amaze me how vandals seem to think the same old tricks will work. Boomer VialBe ready to fight the horde! • Contribs 07:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Blocked, Tagged, Ignore. Regards SoWhy 08:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Revdel request

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

    This user is clearly NOTHERE and his edits may need to be revdeleted [49] –Ammarpad (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ammarpad: I've blocked the account and oversighted the edits. If you come across something like that again, please email the oversight team ([email protected], Special:EmailUser/Oversight, or any of the details on WP:RFO) rather than posting it here where lots of people are likely to see it before it goes. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was about to email OS when I saw you had already handled it. Nothing more to do here. Regards SoWhy 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=819791428"