Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Moylesy98

Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just come off a block for edit warring and has resumed hostilities. Short of an indefinite block, I think that the only way this can be dealt with is by means of an editing restriction:-

"Moylsey98 is permanently prohibited from adding an image to, removing an image from, or changing any image contained in, any article or list."

He may propose additions, removal or changes at talk pages. Any additions, removals or changes may be made by any editor of good standing if there is consensus for same. Any breach of this restriction to be enforced by a block of not less than three months duration. Mjroots (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Moylesy98 has been notified of this discussion Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• And 5 minutes later they're indef blocked? C'mon give the guy a chance to at least reply!

I would support this indef block (rather than a TBAN) because it's fundamentally behavioural and failing to see what the rules (do source, do follow consensus, don't edit-war) are, rather than narrow enough to filter. Maybe they can make some case for "OK, I get it, I'll stop" and we could at least try that. But surely they get time to respond, at the very least? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Seriously, I don't see the point. They've been blocked four times this year alone for doing exactly the same thing over and over again, and they clearly haven't understood why they've been blocked. The latest block was for two weeks, and they came back straight away with reverts of the exact same material that got them blocked for edit warring (i.e. replacing good images with their own sub-par ones), with edit-summaries like "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" and "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy". We can only have limited patience with this, I'm afraid. If they come back with an unblock request that addresses the problems, then yes we can try a limited unblock, but they need to understand why they keep being blocked first, and they clearly haven't. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, he's indeffed but has TP access. We can discuss the proposal and it can be made a condition of unblocking. Mjroots (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We should at-least unblock them to make their case here. Blocking a few minutes after talking here is extremely unfair. I would support a block, but give them enough rope, so that they can respond. The Duke 18:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• They've just posted an unblock request which is going to be rejected on sight: it's a reasonable case for what they believe to justofy their editing, but it's entirely not an unblock request, as it doesn't address the reason for blocking. As such, yet another blocked editor is just going to have their unblock request refused summarily, leading to yet another angry ex-editor.

Their "request" still fails to address the underlying problem, and is a complete misunderstanding of how image selection for articles is, or should be, done. As such, it shows no long-term hope for a real solution and unblock here. But we have to at least explain this to them! As it is, we're steaming straight into the typical, and terrible, standard WP response and we need to do better. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Meh, I have difficulty seeing any of this as a real failing on our part. Lots of people have tried to talk to Moylsey98 long before it came to this. I see plenty of non templated comments on their talk page, including from you. Moylsey98 has barely responded (even from looking at their contrib history). They've shown zero real willingless to learn and seriously engage with people to try and understand where they're going wrong. It's not like they've come back and done things slightly differently each time. They've generally just done the exact same thing. By their own admission, the only real reason they've been adding the images is for spam like reasons, they want to promote their own work. As with a number of spammers, their COI means they likely genuinely believe their work is better than anything else, but really there's no reason for the community to waste a lot of time educating them when they're so unwilling to learn. If individual community members want to try and teach them that's fine. But there's zero reason to waste time at ANI on what's a clear cut case. If people are able to teach them on their talk page, they're free to request an unblock and I'm sure some admin will get to it. But it's not something the community should be expected to spend a great deal of time on. Nil Einne (talk) 03:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's not forget this is not the first time Moylesy98 has been at ANI. Even given that this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#User:Moylesy98 was perhaps not worth responding to, I recall this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1002#Uncivil and threatening comments by User:Moylesy98 on an issue fairly related to what's going on here was at ANI for quite a long time which is also supported by the time stamps. And their block log shows they were unblocked for all of it [1]. And Special:Contributions/Moylesy98 shows a small number of edits during a fair amount of that time. So frankly, we've already given this editor way more latitude and waited more than long enough for them to seriously engage with us than we needed to. They've completely failed to do it any meaningful way, and instead have just continued to spam (by their own admission) in numerous ways. If anyone ever gets through to them then good. But really it's no major failing on our part that we didn't. Nil Einne (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm actually a strong believer that we're way too reluctant to unblock someone to allow them to participate in an AN//I discussion about them. IMO the copying over from talk business is more complicated for everyone than it needs to be. Unless there's good reason to think the editor isn't going to obey the condition, I think we should as a matter or routine on request, unblock someone to allow them to participate in the discussion about them with the understanding it's the only thing they're allowed to do. Any violation of this condition will of course lead to an instant reblock, and is likely to destroy their chances. (And we should perhaps also remind editors that WP:Bludgeoning discussion is likely to harm them.) But in my mind, this isn't really an issue here because 1) No one really seems to think the topic ban proposal as a replacement for the indef is worth it 2) They haven't asked. (This comes up most often with cban appeals.) That said, if a serious proposal did develop and Moylesy98 were to request, I'd support it here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Black Kite - would you be amenable to Nil Einne's suggestion of unblocking in order to participate here? Nil Einne - the reason nobody is addressing my proposal is that they are all arguing over the merits of the block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I support an indef block. But only once we've at least tried to explain it and given them a chance to respond. Even if that doesn't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

In haste, I may have more time later, but I wanted to comment before this was closed. I am not an admin. I have seen editing from User:Moylesey98 which has lead me to believe that there might be difficulties in both understanding and writing in English. I alluded to it in [2]. They may have difficulty in making an unblock request. A young editor (that is young in development of skills; I am unsure of their age) might become better. A young editor might be understandably proud of a new camera and want to see their images used. I have seen images added by him which I found as good as most, and deserving of a place in articles. I have not time to find them now.SovalValtos (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No need to rush. The closure made earlier was my fault, and because I didn't realize that the proposal was still ongoing... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I have now found how to see some of User:Moylesey98's image uploads to commons[3]. I think there are images of value. They do not have to be of immediate use and even poor quality images may turn out to be of value in the future when some unsuspected aspect of the image is identified as being of use. I think some of his images may have been denigrated, which could have exacerbated the situation. A few examples in the gallery should give an indication of how this editor's contributions might be of value. If totally blocked their interest in contributing to commons as well might be lost. The lack of competence in other aspects might well persuade admins to block for a while. I would not object if that were the case as much effort has been spent on dealing with this editor's incompetence already.

• 
  Defiant and Earl of Mount Edgcumbe at Tyseley
• 
  Hunslet 0-6-0 no 3696 "Respite"
• 
  Andania's builders plate
• 
  Avonside 0-6-0 no 1883

To clarify for you, the problem isn't that Dave occasionally takes good enough photos that are, or might be, useful. The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what he's doing, so he takes many more poor quality photos than the accidental good ones. But then he persists in insisting that "his" photos, are included in articles, regardless of whether they are better than others. If they happen to be better than others, we should include them at least until better ones are available. But more often than not they're not, and we therefore shouldn't. If you want a few examples, take a look at these:

• 
  Composition wtf?
• 
  shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
• 
  horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
• 
  overexposed mess
• 
  Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
• 
  Distracting snowstorm
• 
  Overexposed sky, odd composition
• 
  A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
• 
  It's mostly a tree!
• 
  subject in the middle
• 
  too dark
• 
  This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
• 
  Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
• 
  subject in the middle, overexposure...
• 
  Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
• 
  Taken from the side in shadow;
• 
  meh
• 
  Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
• 
  The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
• 
  This is OK

He's got a Flickr account where there's pages and pages of this stuff. Tony May (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Let's not get all steamed up about this. EEng 08:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  tldr - I completely lost track. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Shame, you missed vital points.SovalValtos (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  I want to express my disappointment at the limited participation. EEng 14:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  Now, now let's not derail this discussion. --Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Okay, that's enough, this conversation terminates here. All change please, all change. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  You heard Ritchie: that's the end of the line. Roll along, now. Leviv ich 16:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Seems like discussion's come to a halt. EEng 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals

Look at ‎#Northamerica1000 disruption at MfD and #Legacypac and portals on this page, WP:AN#Thousands of portals, the hundred or so portal nominations currently at MfD, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Portal issues (which is heading towards being declined) various other discussions linked in those threads and it is clear that something needs to done to stop this getting even further out of hand. I suggest that community discretionary sanctions for all discussions about portals (including but not limited to MfD) is a simple and necessary first step. Specific restrictions on specific editors can then be placed as needed with much less drama than at present.

Note to everybody please keep this discussion on topic. It is not the place to discuss the merits or otherwise of portals, the merits or otherwise of portal MfDs, portal speedy deletion, portal prods, etc, etc. It is also not the place to discuss specific incidents and/or specific users (use existing sections or start new ones for this), it is intended solely for discussion about discretionary sanctions for the topic area. Proposals for and discussion of specific sanctions to be applied if sanctions are authorised should also not take place in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, at this point at least - there are a fair few negative discussions, but I don't think there's been sufficient attempt made to handle the disruptive conversations using the regular means (I suspect the prevalence of experienced editors has discouraged stricter de-escalation beyond conversation (which is a great first step, but clearly not enough at this point)). Until standard conduct review methods such as ANI have been shown, to a clear and convincing level, to not work then I don't feel we should escalate to DS - which are frequently overused and an absolute nightmare to ever get rid of. With regards to breadth, it's a relatively small group of editors throughout, rather than this absolutely hoard of disruptive editors that require a shoot first, review later policy. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nosebagbear: Would you then care to make an attempt to handle the ongoing disruption using the usual means because nothing that anybody else has actually tried has worked so far. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as an overreaction which would not even need to be suggested if all the major parties involved turned off their PCs for 24 hours; with less WP:BLUDGEONing of each other and other commentators, preferably. ——SerialNumber54129 17:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support for 45 days (or other similar range of between 30 and 90 days). The purpose of GS/DS is to empower administrators to take actions to benefit the encyclopedia which might otherwise be difficult to impossible to do. As someone who doesn't see much value behind Portals but also has a "hey I'm already weird because I edit wikipedia and even among these weirdos I'm weird because of my niche" live and let-live attitude I'd welcome a chance for community discussions to play-out and consensus to form. It seemed, at least from my casual observations, that things had cooled a little when the ARC was filed but as it has become clearer that this would be declined (which I think is the right thing for ArbCOM to have done) it seems that the temperature is heating back up. It further seems from the threads I've observed at ARC, AN, and ANI (as well as the occasional talk page) that it's the same players going at each other time and time again. A timelimited GS would hopefully allow some neutral administrators the leeway to help cool the temperature back down so there is space for editors who care about Wikipedia but cannot muster the passion of a thousand burning suns around Portals and/or their deletions to (re)join in and help guide us to a conclusion but also then not continue to stick around forever. Because after we (hopefully) reach a point where consensus has been reached, there will be alignment about the way forward even if there's not complete agreement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen widespread disruption as yet. The discussion is getting long and tedious, but being long and tedious is not sanctionable. --Jayron32 18:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose No admins will be sanctioned without a long ArbComm case where every benefit will be given the Admin, meanwhile DS will dangle a sword over the head of ordinary users who would be subject to immediate restrictions or block without discussion. DS is just another path for the proposer to get what they failed to get with complaints at ANi and ArbComm. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If you liked the Infobox Wars, you'll love the Portal Crusades. EEng 01:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This seems like a permanent solution for a temporary problem. With the discussion on portals spread out over so many pages, I think this adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I'll be the first to admit that the issue of portals has brought out less than ideal behavior by some editors but I think this can be handled wiith blocks for regular disruptive or tendentious editing, if this is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose without any indication what kind of discretionary sanctions the proposer has in mind in which situations. Would too many nominations be sanctionable? Too many !votes which don't match the end result? Repeating arguments, already debunked in one or two MfDs, in other MfDs? !Votes without "proper" argumentation? It's unclear which problems the proposer is trying to tackle here. Fram (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Fram I'm clearly on a fairly small island with Thryduulf in seeing benefit for this so let me give a go at answering your questions: the problem that GS would try to tackle is general disruption to the project caused by editors who are fighting, as EEng says, the Portal Crusades. So for one disruptive editor the answer might be a limit on MfD nominations per week. For another it might be that they may not initate/comment at ANI about portals related behavior. For a third it might be a more typical behavior warning. Essentially it's appropriate sanctions ala User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions. The goal should be to decrease the temperature and allow the project to come up to alignment for a way forward with Portals. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I have read and re-read the discussions at both AN and ANI, and from what I've gleaned, NA1K has done nothing wrong; certainly not anything even remotely considered unbecoming of an admin. She is indeed a creator of portals - many of which represent excellent work - and has also demonstrated -0- opposition to the deletion/nomination of any portal that fails to meet inclusion criteria; therefore, not a steadfast inclusionist or deletionist as what we've seen in the infobox wars. With regards to behavior, I have never known NA1K to be either impolite or refuse/deny any editor an opportunity to openly discuss an issue in the proper venue. What I've gleaned about Legacypac is that he appears to be focused on the clean-up and deletion of portals, a large number of which resulted from a brief episode of mass creation that has since been addressed. Quite frankly, the evidence/argument he has presented against NA1K simply doesn't support his steadfast position. Based on my experiences, it seems out of character for Legacypac, and it saddens me that 2 highly productive editors are at odds over issues that can be easily resolved with a bit of productive collaboration at the proper venues. I remain cautiously optimistic that Legacypac will step back long enough to realize what a mental strain and absolute time sink this entire incident has been, and will turn his focus to other areas of the project where his contributions are much needed and appreciated, such as AfC/NPP. It's time to let others handle the portal situation for a while. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme I feel like I made the case for this as best as I could. It's very clear the community doesn't agree with me on this and so out of respect for the consensus model I am not going to belabor this by arguing further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Good God no. Never in the history of Wikipedia have discretionary sanctions "decreased the temperature"; they just increase the toxicity of already-toxic issues by forcing disputes to fester because people are afraid to comment. If an editor is being disruptive then treat them as we would any other disruptive editor. To hammer home a point that hasn't been hammered enough here, this is not an important issue since 99.99% of readers never see a portal; yes, malformed portals are a nuisance and need to be culled and yes, the mass creation constituted intentional disruption, but hardly anyone will ever see the malformed portals and I'd like to think nobody would be stupid enough to try to restart the mass creation. ‑ Iridescent 20:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
• No, per Iridescent. The intention is good, the plan of execution is not. Everybody involved in this mess needs to wind down the aggression and combative attitudes that have made it so much more unpleasant than it needs to be, and instead work towards resolving it in the quickest, easiest and most amicable way possible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

When a trout just isn't enough...^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose but what if we topic ban all editors from discussing portal-related user conduct on any page other than WP:PortalFight2019, enforceable by a 24hr first-time no-warning block by any uninvolved admin? Not a joke suggestion. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Portal_MFD_Results may help Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary, per above. SemiHypercube 🎂 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support - A few editors need to be topic-banned from portal discussions. ArbCom said that the community was handling the portal issues, so the community should handle the portal issues in the same way as the ArbCom would have, by empowering administrators to take draconian action. Strong support. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment - The Original Poster of this is Thryduulf, who is an advocate for portals. I am a strong critic of portals. But we agree that sometimes a Gordian knot needs to be cut. (Yes, the tool that is used to cut a Gordian knot draws blood, but that sometimes minimizes total injuries.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Iridescent. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Iridescent per Levivich's earnest suggestion, but strong support for their oppose per cygnis insignis, and McClenon's support of Thryduulf's original proposal. And my axe! Insincerely, cygnis insignis 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done. I'm not sure ArbCom sanctions are necessarily needed at this point, because a topic ban as suggested by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) might be sufficient. We really do need better guidelines on what qualifies a portal for deletion, and then purge the ones that don't fit and update the ones that do. Something that stops the portal crusades in the short term will be desperately needed... SportingFlyer T·C 01:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Something needs to be done indeed. There are many people here saying that discretionary sanctions are nor required because the usual processes are sufficient. However this requires that people actually engage with the usual processes - since I started this thread there have been at least two more ANI threads related to portal issues that have not had sufficient engagement by uninvolved admins for anything to actually result, and those listed at the top are also still open, tacitly permitting the disruptive behavior to continue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Doing something at random has no chances to improve anything. Only doing some right things could do that. First point that needs some right thing. The Portal:Dangun is a just created 2,857 bytes page. But it's deletion will not delete 2,857 bytes of information. To create this marvelous portal from scratch, only the 14 bytes incantation: {{subst:bpsp}} were needed. Therefore deleting the $3000+$ content-less portals will not delete $\approx 3000\times 3000$ bytes of information, but exactly nothing ($=0$ bytes of information). What to do with the repetitive clamors about don't kill our precious $10,000,000$ bytes ? Second point that needs some right thing. Many SPP=Single Purpose Portals seem very similar in their intents to these SPA=Single Purpose Accounts that are chased across the wiki. I don't think we have to try to provide a commercial advantage to KFC versus McDonalds or conversely. For the present, these portals score 448 versus 199 views per month (probably most of them from the deletion discussions): rather ridiculous than COI... but big holes start by small ones. Pldx1 (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox there is a single MfD where over 2600 portals are nominated for deletion in a single discussion. If there was ever an attempt at fait accompli this is it. It is claimed that all of them meet a criterion set out in the discussion but it is not possible to verify this and given the track record in this area, I am not able to trust without verification. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf, it is indeed possible to verify them, because as I promised in discussion at MFD, I have described in detail the process by which I made the list, complete with the code for the AWB module I used. The process is set out at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/Selection process. The AWB module which I used is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Mass-created portals based on a single navbox/AWB module. As you will see there, I have asked for others to verify the list. You are of course very welcome to test it yourself, and I hope you do so.

I note that as usual, you have made no substantive argument to make against the rationale for deletion. You neither defend nor reject the deletion rationale. Instead, you object to process solely on the basis of your assumption of bad faith. One way or another, you object to every single process used or proposed for cleaning up the portalspam.

And as usual, there is the bucketloads of ABF and smears you which deployed even at the Arbcom case request.

The claim of fait accompli is a risible piece of your usual WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. A group of pages has been nominated for deletion on the basis of clearly set out shared criteria. Editors are free to decide whether they support deletion on those criteria, so there is no more fait accompli than in any other XFD nomination.

The funniest bit of all this, is that you proposed discretionary sanctions. That is truly hilarious. Given your repeated misconduct in smearing and maligning the editors who work on cleaning up the portalspam, you'd be near the top of the list for any sanctions applied. Luckily for you, your proposal is going nowhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• The biggest fait accompli being, of course, the mass creation of something clearly inapproproate and then a refusal to assis in the clear up. Happy days indeed. ——SerialNumber54129 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The biggest waste of time is having to explain multiple times in every discussion that just because many portals were created without consensus does not indicate a need to delete them all as quickly as possible, does not create a need to ignore consensus, and most prominently does not mean two wrongs make a right. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    If you have to explain something in every discussion, whatever you're explaining does not have consensus. Leviv ich 23:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

    @Levivich: I only have to repeat things because those who feel that the sky is in danger of falling in if these are not deleted asap (a slight exaggeration, but at times it doesn't really feel that way) did not repeat things based on the same assumptions that very clearly do not have consensus - principally that there is a deadline, that these portals are actively harmful, and that because something was created without explicit consensus explicit consensus is not required to delete it. Every discussion to date has resulted in exactly none of these achieving widespread agreement (let alone consensus), yet almost every day there is a new action, proposal or comment based on at least one of them being a statement of unarguable fact. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

No one does have to say [the same thing] every day; but when one feels one has too, it's pure, distilled, unadulterated WP:BLUDGEON :D ——SerialNumber54129 13:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thryduulf - I understand your frustration but my familiarity with imposed DS (and there is no denying DS and AE can be highly problematic) raises justifiable concern that the proposed resolution may create a worse nightmare than simply undoing what caused the problem in the first place. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely unnecessary. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose An un-needed proposal, which would only increase drama. The only possible benefit of it is that it would very likely lead to discretionary sanctions against the proposer Thryduulf, whose long stream of assumptions of bad faith and unevidenced smears against other editors have repeatedly poisoned the discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't the way, and the naughty step discretionary sanctions would probably only serve to cause further polarisation and disharmony. I am so sad that what was last year's common sense community recognition that Portals were of value and merit has somehow turned into a Pyrrhic victory. It is such a shame that experienced and competent editors can't all work more sensibly and cooperatively for the common good of this encyclopaedia. That we are even talking about DS is quite an indictment of our behaviour over this issue. How must this look from the outside, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Anti political shills

This account is being used only for promotional purposes. POV pushing on articles related to Balkan states. Reported to AIV twice, but was told to come here. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 20:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Diffs and an explanation of what they are promoting would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: You also failed to notify the user as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren is obviously collaborating with Jingiby to push Bulgarian views on Balkan articles, all I'm doing is cleaning out the obvious agenda pushing in these articles as my history indicates. Jingiby has been abusing WK:NPOV for over a decade (Redacted). Clearly a breach of | WK:NPOV, and Woshiyiweizhongguoren is supporting him in this act and is sending threats to me to discontinue my editing. Jingiby has a highly negative reputation, as can be seen by googling his name. All I'm trying to do is make articles which he has edited have more neutral perspectives. I can give examples of Jinbigy's edits which are obvious breaches of | WK:NPOV that I neutralised.

Bulgarian Australians

Jingiby's statement: "... who count the Bulgarian Australian and the later Macedonian Australian diaspora together for historical reasons, estimate a total number of around 100,000 [Bulgarians in Australia]"

The above is obviously a fraudulent statement that pushes Bulgarian narratives, and it is highly contradictory with the Australian census.

Taga za Yug

Jingiby keeps on removing and white-washing references to Macedonians and Macedonia while primary sources and the poster on the article clearly refer to Macedonians and Macedonia Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Three more issues regarding this user:

1. He may be abusing multiple accounts, see the first message on his talk page. He then tried to clarify things by listing an IP address he used, but IPs aren't accounts, so I'm not sure.

2. His username may be a bit too inappropriate and POV pushing for Wikipedia.

3. His allegations of me collaborating with Jingiby are 100 percent false. His dishonesty is just making things worse. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 18:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Really sounds like you are scraping the bottom of the barrell here to create a smoke screen for yourself and Jingiby. Anti political shills —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: As Bbb23 already mentioned, if you could provide specific diffs and explanations of the bad edits in question that would speed the process along greatly. Accusations are worthless without evidence. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: Diff. Moving pages against established consensus. I'd also include a diff for the multiple account issue on his or her talk page, but that's the first contribution. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anti political shills: This is kind of interesting. "Rv sock." Tell me, how many accounts do you have? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Woshiyiweizhongguoren: See my talk page. You really need to stop with the false allegations Anti political shills

This is also a concern [4] considering WP:OUTING issues. And while I don't think it justifies a block of itself, these edits [5] [6] [7] misusing the term WP:vandalism are a concern. Still despite this poor response [8] to concerns, they don't seem to have repeated it yet. This move is also a concern [9]. I have no idea what the current MOS is regarding Macedonia and frankly don't give a damn but it has been at the title long enough [10] to make such a move highly inadvisable without an RM. (I do think the admin made a mistake when protecting, it should have been labelled as protecting due to a dispute and not vandalism, but I guess maybe they just clicked the wrong button.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway at a minimum, I've given Anti political shills a WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions alert. It was my first time, so hopefully I did it right [11]. I did not give Woshiyiweizhongguoren notification as despite APS's claims to the contrary, Woshiyiweizhongguoren doesn't seem to be particularly involved in the area. I did not give Jingiby an alert as I assume [12] is still valid for a few weeks at least for the Balkans despite it being subsumed into EE. Incidentally, despite APS explicitly bringing up and accusing Jingiby of wrong-doing above, they were not notified of this discussion until I did so [13] Nil Einne (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne left me a note about being mentioned here but I'm not sure which bit applies to me. If it was the move protection then it had nothing to do with it being North Macedonian or Macedonian but that it should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#Elections and referendums and the date goes first. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I see that there is a discussion in which my name is mentioned, but the editor who intervened me in it User:Anti political shills did not let me know. Thanks to the administrator User:Nil Einne who did it. I understand what Anti political shills accuses me of, but I do not understand why. At the same time, the User:Woshiyiweizhongguoren accusations against him, seem to me to be not without reason. Jingiby (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Outing is a big no, no. Other claims made by @Anti political shills go into casting WP:ASPERSIONS territory. I'm really concerned about this editor and looking at the examples presented above of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, @Anti political shills appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari's conclusion. Apcbg (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree the outing is very concerning. The Google search this user is already a concern, but the actual mention and screen shot of an external site IMO clearly crosses the line. I only noticed it after I'd made my post and quickly redacted it. I didn't otherwise comment as I privately emailed an admin to see if it qualified for revdeletion so wanted to avoid drawing attention to it until this has been assessed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of sock puppetry, I'd like to know what other accounts belong to Anti political shills, besides the diffed IP. I won't open an SPI, since the admins may already know which account(s) I'm referring to. If Anti political shills gets blocked for all of this, please remember to block all associated sock puppet accounts and IPs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woshiyiweizhongguoren (talk • contribs) 10:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As a Balkan topic area editor myself, who is watching the articles closely, I am not surprised to see someone with POV agendas such as User:Anti political shills casting WP:ASPERSIONS against editors such as Jingiby who are simply doing their job in defending Wikipedia's articles from people who did not come to build up an encyclopedia. Like how the others above said, User:Anti political shills is ought to explain and defend himself without besmirching the reputation of other editors. If the Admins know or have evidence of WP:SOCKPUPPET, then I have faith the appropriate actions on the matter will be taken without delay. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. A WP:NOTHERE and sock puppetry block forever would do. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jingiby: I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anti political shills to determine whether User:Gaylordbush69 is a sock. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok! Jingiby (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if not a sock, certainly an inappropriate username. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI results: Gaylordbush69 is most likely not a sock puppet account. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 21:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

‎Onel5969/Year in Radio links/Possible Script Misuse

‎Onel5969 has been removing (and edit-warring to remove) Year in Radio links (ie: 1996 in Radio) which have been shortened to show just the year on 19 radio station pages. Why 19, no idea. First the user claims they are in violation of WP:DATELINK. When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK, the user once again reverted (I believe he is at 3RR, haven't issued the warning) and is now claiming something regarding WP:LINKING. If the user is going to remove the links from just 19 pages, he is going to have to do so from ALL radio and television station pages.

Plus, he claims he is using a script to do these edits. Clearly that script isn't working properly or has been changed. I don't seen anything in the script where Year in Something is/can/will be changed.

I have tried to speak with ‎Onel5969 and gotten snarky comments and this claim of violation under one rule to a claim of a violation under another rule. There has been consensus prior (BURDEN) that these are allowed and what harm are they really causing. Plus, removing them on just 19 pages?! So, I bring this to you all. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:57 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

User has been notified of this thread and of the possible 3RR violation. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:05 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

I have respectfully requested Neutralhomer to provide examples supporting their position. They have refused to do so. They have stated, "When proven that there was an exception for these kinds of WikiLinks within DATELINK", without actually have done so. When they reverted the edits I had made, which I did through the WP tool "All dates to mdy", I was a bit taken aback. I remembered an instance which had occurred several years back where I had linked a year on a film article I had created to "xxxx in film", which had been reverted, but I couldn't remember the policy/guideline which had been cited in that revert. Since I couldn't remember, I posted a question in the Teahouse. Another editor (who I won't reference so that I won't be accused of CANVASSING), responded with the aforementioned WP:DATELINK. When I reverted their revert, and stated that position, they shortly reverted again, stating that as per WP:BURDEN it was up to me to prove my case. Now, that's not exactly what BURDEN is about. That guideline has to do with removing and re-adding cited/uncited material, which has no bearing on this discussion. However in my looking at the basic WP:LINKING guidelines, I pointed out that one of the main points of creating a link was "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." And then pointed out that to create a link to another page which didn't even mention the subject of the article in question hardly met that qualification. At that point, I made my second revert (which is what I always try to limit myself to), and made the point on my talk page I list above. Subsequent to that, I reached out to an admin I respect (again, unmentioned, as to not imply I am canvassing), to seek guidance on whether I should open a RFC on the topic. And if so, where. The issue, as I see it, is that the above editor feels that, as they put it, "Radio and TV station pages operate in a special "realm" in many rules and consensus discussions". And that very well may be true. But I went to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, and saw nothing which dealt with this topic. The only thing I saw was Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Infobox which states that instructions to the infobox can be found at the template, Template:Infobox radio station. At that location, the only guidance is that the startdate should follow this format: First date of broadcast, using {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD}}. This says nothing about linking to "xxxx in radio". I feel that bringing this to ANI at this stage is silly and a waste of editors' time, but since it has been brought here, I felt compelled to reply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What made you feel compelled to edit war, for example at WVSP-FM? Using a script to make multiple edits is very undesirable if there is any opposition. The matter must be settled somewhere before continuing. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, at WVKO (AM), WVSP-FM, WPZZ, WHOV, WLQM (AM), WRJR, WSNQ (AM), WLLL, WGPL, WPCE, WTOY, WHLQ, WKBY, WBLB, WDVA, WSBV, WREJ, WFTH, WGMZ, WGAD, WARB and WWDN... ——SerialNumber54129 09:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The user continues to use a script to remove year links from pages even though this ANI stands. The script they are using does not allow for removal of YEAR in WHATEVER linking. It has been changed. Also, with this ANI open, they should have stopped (as Johnuniq said) until the matter was settled. They haven't. I'm asking an admin to basically force onel5969 to use the script correctly, to stop their edits and to address this issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:27 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Didn't realize this ANI was still open. I was still waiting for you to respond, as per policy and guidelines, to support your position. Which I've asked you repeatedly to do, and you refuse to. But you're right, as long as this is open, I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

onel5969: When you changed your reasoning from DATELINK to LINKING and then I looked at the script you were using and saw nothing that would cause the correction of the YEAR in WHATEVER linkage, I brought it here. My "refusal" to respond was allowing the admins to handle your using a script to edit pages in a way you shouldn't. WAAAAY against the rules (see Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, among others). The former got in major trouble many-a-time, and the latter got admonished and lost his adminship (and I think blocked by ArbCom).

Now, to Serial Number 54129's question which you didn't answer, why did you only choose those radio station pages and none others? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:43 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

Didn't "change" my reasoning. I bolstered the original guideline by adding a second, even more targeted argument, to it. You refused to address either, and began an edit war. And not sure what you mean by using a script to edit pages in a way I shouldn't. I simply use the script. The script automatically makes the change to the "xxxx in yyyy" entries in articles. So not sure what you're implying there. So far, without any examples of why, your argument simply boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And I don't read that other editor as questioning why only those articles, but to answer your question, I attempt to make corrections on every article I touch. Whether it's filling in raw links, adding a short description, fixing dashes, harmonizing dates, stub sorting, occasionally de-orphaning, whatever. Those were articles that came up during my daily dab fix routine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

One, you don't use a script in an edit war. Period. Two, nowhere here does it say that the scrip will delink YEAR in SOMETHING links.

Three, I am going to ask then. If the YEAR in RADIO link is used on all radio station pages (and it is) why did you remove it from just those? Also, why did you use a script to continue an edit war? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:18 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

First, I think you missed "Del year-in-X dates – unlinks the most common 'year-in-X' links". It's #1 in the second group of what the script does in Overview. Second, already answered. Third, I didn't use a script to respond to your edit warring. I simply reverted your revert when you refused to give a valid rationale for your reverts, based on policy. Which my edits were. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are using a script that is, in itself, disruptive. Awesome. For the why you only edited those radio station pages, you turned the question around on me. Not an answer. Why did you edit just those pages and not any of the others? As for your reverts, a script was used for your first revert. As for you "But you're right, as long as this is open, I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines" malarkey, that lasted all of 14 minutes or 16 minutes (depending on the script). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:41 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't changed any "year in xxxx" links since I made that comment. When you make an accusation, you should really provide the DIFF. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You do have a point, BUT when say you won't use a script to make a certain kind of edit. Probably best not to make any script edits, especially when you are concerned the script might not be working properly. Just saying.

Now, please, answer my question. Why did you only edit those radio stations pages and not all the others? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:13 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this thread, and my conclusions are the following:

1. There is no consensus as to whether years in a radio station infobox should be linked to the appropriate 'x in radio' article (per advice given by Bearcat on Onel5969's talk page).
2. Although Onel was getting towards the limit of 3RR two days ago, he does not appear to have edit warred since and has moved on, and sanctions are not punitive. If he begins systemic edit-warring across articles, ping me with diffs and I will look at it. (Ping me without diffs and I'll probably refer you to this).
3. As result of the above two, Neutralhomer and Onel should both calm down, take a deep breath, and realise getting upset about other edits is not worth it.
4. The content dispute is not a matter for ANI.

I think that's everything, so unless there are further insights, I think we can close this thread out now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

[14] ——SerialNumber54129 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ritchie333: I did try to discuss this on his talk page first to no avail. I would like to know why he edited only those radio station pages and the VAST numbers of other radio station pages that still have the YEAR in Radio link on them. With due respect to Bearcat, this is something that remains across Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:02 on April 8, 2019 (UTC)

But Onel has also said "I'll refrain from correcting articles in that manner, according to WP guidelines." which sounds like your answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333, I think the answer I gave to Neutralhomer's question regarding why these articles (emphasis mine), was "I attempt to make corrections on every article I touch. Whether it's filling in raw links, adding a short description, fixing dashes, harmonizing dates, stub sorting, occasionally de-orphaning, whatever. Those were articles that came up during my daily dab fix routine." I have no desire to seek out every radio article and delink those items, but the script clearly does delink them, in keeping with MOS guidelines. So is there a problem with the script? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I recognise these scripts as I use them myself, generally running them manually after doing some improvement on an article. I think the main thing to remember when running a script is that you are directly responsible for any edits made by it, and if other editors challenge the changes, you shouldn't edit war over them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Αντικαθεστωτικός

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

There is a history with disruptive editing and personal attacks by Αντικαθεστωτικός against me and today this kind of behavior resurfaced. History was reported here (permalink) at Bishonen's. talk Page

Today, Αντικαθεστωτικός,

• violates BRD: once, twice
• claims that I am censoring him (and Galassi apparently) [15] (more todays diffs: [16] and [17]. Older diffs: (me and Czar this time) [18], [19] . I have asked him to stop this accusation before [20]
• Associates me with "anarchist rape denialism" (a term I was not familiar with) which I feel it is a moral stigma. (But please tell me you are fact denier of the rapes of anarchist army? i feel that in 2019 holocaust deniers and katyn massacre deniers must have not place in Wikipedia. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[21] and goes on with i feel so sorry for that and i apologize. but i don't like to discuss with fact deniers. Katyn massacre deniers/holocaust deniers/ anarchist rapes deniers are very exhausting to discuss. So i dont find a reason for that. I saw that you wrote "rapes" and i feared that you denied the facts of anarchist rapes. But, for sure i was wrong and i sincerely apologize. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[22].

This is not a major breach of WP conduct policies, but it has been going for a while (since Nov 2018). Cinadon36 (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with @Cinadon36.--Galassi (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

In bibliography, the correct term is anarchist apologist or if you prefer much worst terms: page 42. I am haunted by this user, who keeps tracking me for months -i don't- and keep reverting for months everything that i wrote in the topics of anarchism. My only purpose is to add the other view and i am not aiming to delete the fringe & black/white theories of anarchists or Ukranian ultra-nationalists who present Nestor Mancho as a Saint. I can't participate in EN:WP in such terms, so even you ban me it's the same result. So feel free to do as you will. I can't even put historians in the articles, and so many excuses (POV pushing, DUE etc), but the result is the same: Censorship.

I won't write here anything else, except a admin want to ask me something. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not quite understand the meaning of the first sentence, so I will give a short answer for the rest of the text. I am not reverting everything you add to anarchism related articles. It is a fault statement. Have a look at the history of pages like Mikhail Bakunin [23] Durrutti [24], May Days [25] , Andres Nin Perez[26], Mikelis Avlichos [27], Christos Tsoutsouvis [28], Kostas Sakkas [29], Camillo Berneri[30] (there are more but I guess I 've made my point). The reasons of reverting some of your edits is mentioned in edit summaries. You should use Talk Pages in a constructive manner, not attacking everyone else (ie that there is an attempt to censor you or imply that they are rape-denialists (next to holocaust denialism). Cinadon36 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits most of them. Deletion of uncited material etc. Also in one article of above you keep haunting me with a blind revert! So these are your proofs that you are not haunting me. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor or not, your highlighten comment was that I am reverting everything. Clearly an incorrect statement. I have noticed a pattern of the mistakes you keep repeating in many articles. That is ok, all of us are entitled to make mistakes. The problem arises when you do not use Talk Page to discuss those mistakes but to attack other users. So it is only natural that the same mistakes go on and on. It has to stop though. It is very tiresome. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Now, i am also haunted from the other user. Look here. I just asked from a single(!) source for an uncited claim and i was blind reverted at once. I provided a source from a up-to-date historian, reverted again, and now the other user claimed that a writer has the same meaning of anintellectual! Ok i am de facto banned. I can't do anything i suppose. It's 2 users vs one that keep tracking me, and reverting me. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Αντικαθεστωτικός, why am not surprised. Pulling the same schtick i see with WP:TENDENTIOUS editing once again. Disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you  refer here [31]. where you wrote about an axis collaborator : You need some academic sources that specifically use collaboratorin this instance and then we can take it from there, otherwise it stays as it is. So you used the word "collaborator" in quotes as other users used the word "rapes". Its 2019 if i cant write simple facts just ban me permanent. Sorry to bother you.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I stated that because reliable sources are needed, not personal opinions especially when it comes to issues of that nature regarding Balkan topics (which are covered by WP:BALKANS). In the end your editing is in the range of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and really your not here to build an encyclopedia.Resnjari (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You asked for a R.S. I provided two. It's common knowledge what is Collaboration with the Axis Powers and not alliance. I think native english speakers can easily undestand the difference. Note that in 2014 i was the first person(!!!!) in English Wikipedia who add that he was an axis ally(my bad english, select this wrong word). Then from Albanian POV users i get -whatelse?- reverted again and again. User wrote to me the same blame with this paragraph: Intentionally denigrative editing, As far as the NAZIs, he fought against communists just like Zerva did. After WWII he cooperated with the Western block, not really a NAZI. This user, also talked about Napoleon Zervas, as you excatly did some years after with a whatabout matters. So i can't contribute. I am here to write an encyclopedia, but if i can't write simple facts as the fact a collaborator was a collaborator then i am for sure in a wrong place. I can't fight history denialism that's for sure, also from the 2 other users in other topic: From user Galassi he wrote Mennonote mythology is not very reliable so he probably don't believe what scolars wrote about Ukranian anarchists rapes/plunder. From user Cinadon36 he wrote "rapes".

Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you have an axe to grind and your trying to divert the discussion through a strawman that no one brought up in here but yourself about your past editing. Anyway Wikipedia is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and its shows that your not here to build an encyclopedia. @Cinadon36: posted examples of your recent problematic edits and administrators ought to take a look at your disruptive editing.Resnjari (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok feel free to ban me. But admins should check aslo who is promoting Historical negationism inside the articles of English Wikipedia. Who forbid to write simple facts and making edit war at once. Who promotes nationalists theories etc. If i failed to participate in English wikipedia, this is a small thing, wikipedia can kick me off me permanently and everything is solved. But Historical negationism is a major issue. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Natalie Wood review requested

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

---

Can someone please review this edit to Natalie Wood's bio? The obvious problem, besides the fact that it's from a SPA with only this one very large edit, is that it's based on an "allegation", "speculation" and an "anonymous blog post." Even tabloids don't go that low for stories, and this is an encyclopedia. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Phil has taken care of the pure speculation. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted, but will be out for the rest of the day (COME ON YOU 'ORNS) so it would be good if I'm not the only one with this on my watchlist. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The IP reinstated it, so I have reverted again and blocked for 31-hours. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Hate to continue on but is El Universal a good enough source for this? It's one source and, while I removed it from the Kirk Douglas article, it's been in the Sexual abuse in Hollywood article for a year. spryde | talk 21:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Spryde: This sort of concern is best raised on the article talk page or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ sockpuppetry

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

---

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

---

123.150.182.177, 123.150.182.179, and 123.150.182.180 are repeatedly editing in concert. They regularly remove warnings from each other's user talk pages, and often act in concert in editing other pages, as can be seen clearly in their individual contribution records and more clearly at Special:Contributions/123.150.182.179/29. Just one recent example is on Cross-Strait relations where the 3 IPs acted together in a series of edits, including the unjustified removal of the template {{pp-pc1}}. The repeated rapid jumping between IPs does not look like reallocation of a dynamic IP but more like deliberately deceptive pretence of being a number of independent users. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I had opened A SPI before and they say having a dynamic ip is not a sin by itself. And so far the ip is civil to willing to sit down in Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949), and yes, he may be have more than those 3 ip from 123.150.X.X. and you should prove his "disruptive editing" by providing real diff and/or post it to edit warring noticeboard. Matthew hk (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

As well as Talk:Nationalist government and Talk:Pahlavi dynasty. Also, 123.124.233.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem him. Matthew hk (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also can you add extended confirmed protection to the page.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The edit-warring is getting bloody silly. ——SerialNumber54129 13:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

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

IP-hopping edit warring continuing on Kingdom of Tungning with no attempt to discuss on the article's talk page. Obviously not a dynamic IP but deliberately switching between static IPs. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agreed that the ip had so many battleground. (see his edit log and warning and previous block log), but i doubt the nature of the ip as purely "static ". It rather seem a private VPN or one of a few ip that VPN service provider to use. I am not sure the Great Firewall of China had blocked en.wiki or not, or may be with or without firewall and VPN, out bond traffic was rerouted to a handful of ip. Matthew hk (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, the provider may able to provide fake info to update local registry, so that WHOIS is wrong. One of the 4 associated ip above, was registered to China Bank (may be in fact Bank of China), but the ISP was actually China Unicom Beijing branch. Another name in the WHOIS data, TIANJIN HUITIANTONGXINKEJIJISHU LTD ("HUITIAN 同心科技技術"?), may be entirely fake. Matthew hk (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

And now it became a fully troll that tagging multiple talk page for merge. see Talk:Mexico/Archive 11, Talk:Iran/Archive 19, Talk:Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea). Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:Alessio Pasquinelli 's WP:NOTHERE

• Alessio Pasquinelli (talk · contribs)
• Spalding (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BLK (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acerbis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Macron (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry for cross-posting from WP:COIN. However, the person based on his linkedin profiles (the Alessio Pasquinelli one and Alessio P. one), is some sort of brand sponsorship agency (Pasquinelli Work Advertising; "PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER EASTERN CONSULTANT SPONSORSHIPS MANAGER ", "EX PROFESSIONAL MARKETING ACCOUNT PROMOTER SPONSORSHIPS BROKER CONSULTANT Manager"). But for ANI matter alone, he keep on removing content without giving a real reason, see Special:Diff/891391353, Special:Diff/891278286. His explanation for BLK (sportswear) also seem not satisfactory. Matthew hk (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

After the ANI, he just ignore the warning on minor edit again by performing this edit . Special:Diff/891393477. Matthew hk (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet again tagging controversial edit as minor edit on top of paid editing. Special:Diff/891821732. Matthew hk (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Acupuncture: not sure what to do here

• Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have two questions about this edit/revert[32][33]
and about these two talk page discussions:[34][35]

Question #1: Is it true that according to the RfC cited, It is impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? Is there something that needs to be done about Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture, or should I advise Roxy and JzG to stop questioning Middle 8's editing of Acupuncture?

Question#2: If something needs to be done here, is this something that should be discussed at ANI, or should I go to WP:AE?

I don't know what the right thing to do here is.

Possibly related:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard discretionary sanctions.
• User:Middle 8/COI
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 139#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think it's actually fairly straightforward - the RfC said "Do practitioners of alternative medicine ... have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice? - in other words, do they automatically have a COI - this was opposed. It did not say "Can practitioners of alternative medicine ...", because clearly, yes they still can, depending on what and how they're editing. Indeed the RfC close specifically said this - "Editors are reminded that any role or relationship outside of Wikipedia may undermine their primary role here of furthering the interests of the encyclopaedia and that editing articles directly in such situations is strongly discouraged.". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Should Middle 8 be requested to not make the claims he makes on User:Middle 8/COI and on the two talk pages I cited above? Should I withdraw this ANI report and bring up the question of whether Middle 8 has a COI at WP:COIN? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• An editor's on-wiki conduct bears on problems like TE and ADVOCACY, not COI. Per EXTERNALREL and the recent RfC clarifying same, COI arises from an editor's external relationships "within their field of expertise" (e.g. The Who's manager has a COI for The Who but not band manager). Otherwise we'd be seeing COI tags and COI/N cases with lots of professional fields. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC); edit for clearer example, 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want to re-litigate something that has been the topic of one Arbcom case, at least two RfCs and a boatload of talk page discussions (ANI deals with user behavior, not article content), but I would like to address Middle 8's "it isn't a COI at all and thus I am not guilty of any COI violation" argument. The counterargument (which may be something Arbcom needs to rule on -- I still would like advice on that) is that our band manager article doesn't contain anything remotely resembling the "Acupuncture is a pseudoscience because the theories and practices of TCM are not based on scientific knowledge" claim that is currently in our accupunture article. If our band manager article said that bands that only pretend to have a band manager work just as well and make just as much money as bands that have them then the band manager for The Who shouldn't edit that article. The key here is that Middle 8, like all acupuncturists, suffers direct financial harm from the fact that our acupuncture article documents through WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that it doesn't matter where you stick the needles in, and that it doesn't even matter whether you stick the needles in -- the outcome is the same. Direct and personal financial harm caused by the content of a Wikipedia article equals a clear conflict of interest regarding that article. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• You already made those exact same reasonable arguments at the RFC (right down to the band manager example), where they were duly considered alongside other reasonable arguments. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 02:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That RfC was about whether alternative medicine practitioners in general have a conflict of interest. This ANI report is about whether you personally have a conflict of interest, and was triggered by you repeatedly claiming that the RfC in question had a result of "It is impossible for Middle 8 to have a COI regarding acupuncture". And you were the one who brought up the band manager argument. Did you really expect such an argument to stand unchallenged? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if you're having difficulty extrapolating from the general case to a specific one. Please see my comment here. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, good, give a pointer to a place where you tried to explain basic logic to a PhD mathematician after they corrected you. Brilliant. The RfC as decided cannot possibly settle the question of whether any particular individual has a COI. (Although probably at this point you should be blocked for tendentiousness and wikilawyering.) --JBL (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong about negation, you just picked the wrong statement to negate. Take the heat down a notch, please, and see my reply below ("If A, then B"). addendum: No, the RfC can't say that a given editor has no COI of any kind, but it can and does say that the principle that profession doesn't cause COI generalizes to CAM professions. This, as far as I can tell, is what Guy Macon disputes: he thinks I might have a COI because acupuncture (.... repeat arguments from RfC). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC); fixed 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 20:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC), 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC); addendum 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, this isn't the right venue to (re)litigate my putative COI -- COI/N is. The "is it impossible" issue is really a red herring (the article tag being minor) -- the main question IMO is whether am I being accused of COI, and why, and whether in light of the RfC result it's even proper to do so. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• As it applies to this instance, would it be fair to state the RfC question as, "Do acupuncturists have a conflict of interest with regard to Acupuncture?" (Acupuncture being "content describing their field of practice".) Leviv ich 18:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Simply having a profession (doctor, engineer, needle poker) doesn't create a COI for that profession, including CAM's -- that's how I read the RfC. And remember, COI by definition comes from one's roles off-wiki, not from one's edits. So I can't imagine any other way one could have a COI for their (or any) broad professional area, can you? If I'm wrong, then I retract my assertion that it's impossible. But I maintain that that COI tag doesn't belong on any article about a profession, and that being an acupuncturist doesn't give me a COI for acupuncture. I really thought that RfC laid such issues to rest, and that we could refocus on content, not contributors. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just get an admin or two to tell me that your interpretation of the RfC is correct, and I will gladly switch to telling Roxy and JzG to stop complaining when you make edits like these[36][37],[38][39] Clearly neither of them agrees that you don't have a COI. I am fine with telling them to stop accusing you of having a COI and I am fine with telling you not to edit pages where you have a COI, but please don't expect me to decide which to do simply because an acupuncturist tells me which he thinks to be correct. You are hardly unbiased. There is nothing wrong with me asking what to do in this situation, so please stop implying that there is.[40] I will get an authoritative answer, either here or from Arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• This seems like IDHT. You already have a clear and authoritative answer from the RfC (which was closed by three uninvolved, experienced admins). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• ...and doesn't say what you have repeatedly claimed that it says. Don't forget that part. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If it doesn't mean that simply being an acu'ist doesn't confer a COI, then Aristotle was wrong. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 06:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• As I've already pointed out to you elsewhere, the negation of "X is always true" is "X is sometimes not true", not "X is never true". This is, literally, a basic failure of logic, and the fact that you repeat the error after being corrected reflects extremely poorly on you. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Actually, JBL, it's "If A, then B" ("If I practice a CAM profession, then that causes a COI for that CAM profession"), the negation of which is "A and not B" ("I practice a CAM profession and that does not cause a COI for that CAM profession"). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC); improved wording 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• P.S. More than happy to reword my comments to clarify [41], fwiw. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy)

• Eh, who cares. We are talking about two edits about an edit notice that no one has probably even read. If it stays or goes who cares really? Other than drama what is the point of this and why did you ping JzG? If you have an issue then take in to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I pinged JzG because, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI, JzG and Roxy are the ones who I will be telling to stop saying that he does. Likewise, if the admins here or Arbcom say that Middle 8 does have a COI, I will be telling him not to edit pages where he has a COI. So far no admin has advised me to close this and go to AE, but I am perfectly willing to do that. I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• What makes you think any of the people involved need your input? You already opened an ill advised RFC that wasted countless hours and ended in the obvious conclusion. If you want to do something then do it but this is just a drama magnet, and you don't need permission to go to AE.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, don’t bother to tell me that M8 has no COI. I won’t believe you. Roxy, the dog. wooF 14:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't completely decided, but I am leaning towards Middle 8 having a COI. Clearly you, I, and JzG all think Middle 8 has a COI, and the existence of an RfC that essentially says that alt med practitioners don't automatically have COIs has not convinced any of the three of us that Middle 8 doesn't have a COI. Of course Middle 8 thinks that it should convince us, but he would say that, wouldn't he?

That being said, if I were to see several admins (or Arbcom) tell us to stop saying that Middle 8 has a COI then we need to abide by that decision whether we agree or not. It doesn't look like that is going to happen here, so if the admins continue to be silent on the question I intend to take it to AE as something that ANI is unable to resolve. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, the fact of whether Middle8 has a COI here is completely dependent on his edits. If he's making neutral sourced edits then it doesn't matter anyway. If he's making disruptive or anti-consensus edits that show a clear POV then he may well be said to have a COI. But more importantly in this case, he should not be removing the edit notice because COI editors - whoever they are - should not be editing any article that they have a COI on; this one is no different. Not only that, but (as I quoted above) the RfC that Middle8 is using to justify removing the notice actually backed up this fact. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow: could you specify which fact you say the RfC backed up, and why? And again, you're mistaken re how COI arises. It doesn't come from biased edits. It comes from one's off-wiki roles. See WP:COINOTBIAS. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 20:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think we're focusing on the wrong thing. What behavior of Middle 8 is being contested here? Which edits were problematic? What has been done in response to those edits? Has Middle 8 showed a continued pattern of bad editing after being warned about such? Your focus on the conflict of interest is a distraction. The focus should be on good or bad editing behavior, and that's it. The minutiae of the COI policies are a distraction, so focus instead on the behavior. --Jayron32 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Paul August ☎ 00:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd love it if we could refocus on content; then bad reverts like this would be avoided (cf. WP:PRESERVE). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 21:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC); revise and abridge 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Guy, if Middle 8 was defending his particular practice, then yes - absolutely a COI. But the sidebar tactic of declaring someone has a COI because they practice a certain whatever, then you'd be preventing every declared liberal from editing Dem political articles and the same as it would apply to conservative who support Repubs. The same would apply to every dentist, dermatologist, massage therapist, etc. I think you see my point. Worse yet, we can't even get a majority to agree that paid editors should be prevented from editing articles they were paid to edit. Major time sink here. Provide the diffs you oppose or just start an RfC at the article, and get ready for the "come what may". Just my 5¢ worth. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Atsme, agreed re other professions, and the thing is, this was all discussed in the RfC and the "No COI" arguments (like yours) were found to outweigh the "Yes" ones. Yet Guy Macon is now suggesting I have a COI using -- wait for it -- those exact same arguments from the RfC (i.e. alt-meds like acupuncture are pseudoscience-y etc.). [42] How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC? And why isn't this at COI/N? --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 09:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice obfuscation. First you tell a blatant lie about what is in an RfC ("it's not possible for an acu'ist to have a COI for acupuncture, per recent RfC")[43] then when someone calls you on it, you write "this was all discussed in the RfC" and "How is this proper, and why did we even have the RfC?". I predict that if this ANI report closes without a consensus that you do have a COI and without a consensus that you do not have a COI, you will start claiming that "Per ANI I have no COI" and if anyone disagrees you will say that ANI settled the question and ask "why did we have a discussion on ANI?". --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There's nowhere in the RfC that someone can claim that acupuncturists cannot have a COI at least. The RfC can mostly be summarized as while having a numerically higher oppose count, the arguments for the supports have stronger arguments, but a specific proposal wasn't needed since current guidelines already cover those viewpoints.

Comments like simply having a profession isn't COI tend to come up here a lot which is true, but that doesn't exclude that specific professions can have one. The key determinant is if that profession runs counter to Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia. Being a university professor, etc. doesn't have very much COI aside from an editor promoting their own research, etc. since their job is essentially presenting encyclopedic knowledge. Someone engaged in alternative medicine or pseudoscience though has a conflict since furthering encyclopedic knowledge runs counter to their profession as outlined in the first paragraph of WP:COI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You read the RfC closing wrong, Kingofaces43. Consensus was on the 60%-ish majority "oppose" side. It said "We find, however, that the oppose arguments are stronger. ... Thus, the proposal to single out alt-med practitioners in policy as having a COI is opposed."

I agree that the financial connection is tighter for the average alt-meder than the average professor, but you can read (or may recall) counterarguments from the RfC (that the slope is slippier than that, and that financial connections for any broad area are much more tenuous than the classic COI example of one's own business, et cetera). --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Specific edits

As requested,[44] and without receiving a definitive answer regarding whether Middle 8 has a COI, I am posting a summary of Middle 8's edits that may or may not be COI violations, depending on whether or not he has a COI.

If you are looking for a smoking gun edit where Middle 8 has made blatantly biased or incorrect edits that would be sanctionable whether or not he has a COI, you can stop reading now. That did not happen. If you are looking for edits that paint acupuncture in a favorable light -- the kind of edit that would be OK if he has no COI but not OK if he does have a COI, read on.

(If you are sensing an undercurrent of me disagreeing with the basic plan of examining his edits without a determination of whether he has a COI, you are correct. I am not looking forward to the inevitable criticism that will follow me posting the following edits, but I realize that I will also be criticized if I don't post them.)

Middle 8 has spent the last ten years editing on and off in the area of Acupuncture. Middle 8 also has a direct financial interest in the Wikipedia acupuncture page and related pages painting acupuncture in a favorable light. I do not believe that Middle 8 is editing in bad faith. I believe that he wants Wikipedia to lean towards portraying acupuncture in a favorable light because he honestly believes that the existing content is too unfavorable.

In my opinion, the COI question is the key. If he doesn't have a COI, then making edits favorable to acupuncture would not be a problem. If he does have a COI they are a problem. That being said, here are some diffs:

His very first edit after registering was to change

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials."

to

"Complementary and alternative medicine treatments, including chiropractic, homeopathy, and energy psychology, have never been proven effective in randomized controlled trials (RCT's). A review of 26 RCT's studying acupuncture for nausea and vomiting showed some effect, but those effects were equivocal for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting."

Diff: 10:56, 28 January 2009 [45]

The next day he changed

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. "

to

"TCM theory predates use of the scientific method and has received various criticisms based on scientific reductionist thinking, lack of evidence, and since there is no physically verifiable anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians. (Hypotheses exist, however; e.g. Langevin and Yandow (2002) postulate a relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes.) "

Diff: 05:46, 29 January 2009[46]

I am not going to list a bunch of edits from years ago unless specifically asked to do that, but here are a couple of samples.

"Unlike established "woo", acupuncture's efficacy and mechanisms are unclear. The jury is out..."

Diff: 10:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC) [47]

"A perusal of Pubmed and Cochrane reviews also shows that acu is taken seriously and shows some evidence of efficacy (see here and here, as does the fact that it's used at numerous academic centers] including some of the best (Harvard, Stanford etc.). Yes, for most conditions acupuncture has been shown not to work, but certainly for pain and nausea there is mainstream debate, cf. Cochrane. All these results are the fruit of recent, "wide and serious study". In fact, the single best MEDRS there is -- Vickers et. al. (2012) -- concludes that acupuncture "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option."

Diff: 10:25, 8 January 2015[48]

This brings us up to recent edits:

"Harrison's states that acupuncture is of some benefit in dysmennorhea, and lists it as a non-pharmaceutical treatment for pain in ADPKD and an adjunctive treatment in knee osteoarthritis, for which it "produces modest pain relief compared to placebo needles" According to Harrison's, acupuncture can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment in PTSD and comorbid depression in war veterans if, despite the lack of evidence, patients find it calming and relaxing."

Diff: 05:47, 5 January 2019[49]

Removed "Individuals with a conflict of interest (COI), particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest."

Diff: 07:48, 7 April 2019[50]

Again, I posted the above edits because I was asked to, not because I believe that they answer the question I asked. And I really am asking whether Middle 8 has a COI, not trying to prove that he does have a COI, so please put your flamethrowers down. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Middle 8 here. The advice from Jayron32 above is superb, but that's not (at all) what Guy Macon is doing. The diffs are selectively quoted (hence the wall of text and not just links), omitting material critical of acu, sources used, how I responded to any reverts, et cetera.

COI arises from one's off-wiki activities and not one's edits (a too-common misconception). Of course some of a non-COI editors' edits could be improper if they had a COI, but it's illogical (and unfair) to insinuate that such non-COI edits imply a COI. That's putting the are-my-edits-conflicted cart before the do-I-indeed-have-a-conflict horse. It's not how you handle either COI or editing concerns. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 00:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Another view

It seems to me that proponents of pseudoscience, in which category accupuncture clearly belongs, must be held to the highest standard when making claims about their particular brand of woo. For a start WP:MEDS seems like a bare minimum when making claims about possible health treatments. Whether of not an editor is a practicing accupuncturist or whether or not they have a COI, all edits about such subjects need impeccible citing to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia correctly subscribes to the mainline scientific view of such subjects and it is always going to be problematice when proponents edit in the areas of their particular interest. It is not akin to an engineer editing an article on engineering practice because there are going to be multiple RS to back up the engineer's claims. The same cannot be said for accupuncture. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Nick, and will add that it is important for us to exercise a level of caution in order to avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia; i.e., all relevant views presented with proper weight and balance per NPOV. We provide the whole picture, not a Photoshopped version of it in an effort to pursuade readers to accept a particular POV - we simply present the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view. If material is poorly sourced, UNDUE, etc. it is subject to removal. If the editor in question has created disruption (such as 3RR or is repeatedly citing unreliable sources) or has acted uncivil (PAs, threats, etc.) in an effort to prevent removal of poorly sourced/UNDUE material, then you have an actionable behavioral issue, but I have not seen any evidence to support such a claim. Circumstantial evidence may establish patterned behavior but is the behavior actionable if there is no evidence to support an actionable claim? What I'm seeing is an editor with a professional perspective. What professional doesn't have a noticeable POV involving their chosen profession? NPOV tells us to include all relevant views published by/cited to RS so our readers can make their own determinations. Just curious...in comparison, do you consider Britannica's accupuncture article to be overly promotional or possibly authored by proponents of pseudoscience, or well-presented? Perhaps such a comparison will help answer your question about COI. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that Brittanica are parroting the chinagov deception that the Chinese use acu to anaesthetise patients for surgery. How accurate is the rest of that article? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What Britannica does is irrelevant to this issue, because they do not claim to follow anything like our WP:NPOV policy. Many of their articles are written by a single person and reflect that person's point of view. That is a feature, not a bug. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Re Atsme's insightful comment above about avoid excluding well-sourced material our readers expect to see in an encyclopedia and simply presenting the facts with proper weight given to the scientific mainstream view, in the cases of acupuncture, the proponents really do believe that the scientific mainstream view is far more favorable towards acupuncture than the Wiipedia article is.

As Upton Sinclair once observed, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it".

So, how do we reach a balance between avoiding the exclusion of well-sourced material and the natural tendency of someone like Middle 8 to not understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it? We simply require him to read and obey Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. Right now the problem is that he honestly believes that an RfC was closed with a conclusion that Best practices doesn't apply to him. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I do take COIADVICE seriously, and am careful, but I'm not 100% all-the-time bound by its mainspace-avoding-advice without a COI finding -- and it's disingenous to suggest I should have one in all but name. You may recall that you opened an RfC with me in mind that concluded (paraphrase, from one of the closing admins): The result of the RfC was that an alt-med practitioner does not have a COI just because of the fact of them being an alt-med practitioner."^[51] Instead of forum-shopping and repeating old arguments from that RfC, please offer a reason why its result doesn't cover me -- IOW why my case is somehow more financially-connected than the default alt-med practitioner. Which per Ernst is small -- he thinks the idealogical "COI", almost evangelical fanaticism, is the much bigger problem. Which we call bad editing. If that's your concern about me, handle it the proper way, not underhandedly like this. Like an actual conversation on user talk, which you have been avoiding. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 23:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC); minor ce23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC), 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC), clarify to avoid another soundbite 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't feel like you need to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, you have a good-faith belief that you don't have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one. And likewise JzG and Roxy shouldn't feel like they need to stop telling you to follow COIADVICE if, as appears to be the case, they have a good-faith belief that you do have a COI and absent a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom that you do have one.

It is clear from your disparaging comments about my filing this ANI case and about the second RfC that you do not want any definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom. You clearly want us to simply agree with your arguments. It is equally clear that Roxy (and I presume JzG) will never stop telling you that you have a COI and that you should follow COIADVICE unless they receive a definitive answer from either the admins at ANI or the arbs at arbcom telling them to stop doing that. So what do we do when editors are unable to agree about how to apply Wikipedia policy and ANI is unable to resolve this disagreement? We take it to arbcom, which I intend to do once this thread is auto-archived without a definitive answer.

Related discussion: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Is it impossible for acupuncturists to have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing acupuncture? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop IDHT-ing and address the crux of the matter: exactly why I should be an exception to the RFC that you brought because of me. --Middle 8 (t • c • privacy) 01:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting sourced content, pushing a personal opinion, ignoring assessed warnings

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

---

Could anyone judge recent edits were made by Dean12065? This user was already blocked by Oshwah on March 11, 2019 for a short time for “Removal of sourced info”. After serving the sentence, the user has started to do such Vandalism-like/Original research-like things by pushing a personal opinion on music genres, styles, and such rather than following conclusions were made by reliable sources across multiple music pages (to name just a few recent affected ones: The Candyskins, Jitters, Hair Peace Salon). Seeing that his Talk page is being constantly blanked, it is enough to determine that numerous assessed warnings put there have been seen and read. This Is Where I Came In (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the previous 2 week block had little effect on this user aside from perhaps prompting him to make the very occasional edit summary in his more recent edits. I too have had to warn him several times recently about his non-collaborative editing; removing or adding info based on his personal opinions, reverting editors without summaries and generally just edit warring until he is threatened here and here with being brought back to ANI. Even though he has received final warnings from different editors on several occasions as well as personal pleas here, here and here from editors, he removes them immediately thereby showing the finger to any collaborative efforts attempted. Given his only reply during the last ANI, I'm inclined to say perhaps this user needs more "off" time to do some reading up on various Wikipedia policies. Robvanvee 19:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I blocked them for 6 months. --Jayron32 12:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron, appreciate your assistance. Robvanvee 15:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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

User:AngloSaxonPride is NOTHERE

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

---

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

This user has inserted unsourced info into several African American musical artists. Think about the user name "AngloSaxonPride". One of the hoaxes they generated immediately after the death of Nipsey Hussle, spread like wild fire in media sources. See Talk:Nipsey Hussle#Birth name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Ghits for "Ermias Davidson Ashgedom" demonstrates the damage done.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I've indeffed the user for BLP violations. Seemed like the best rationale, although NOTHERE, VOA, disruptive editing, any of those would have done as well. He has already been indeffed at sv.wiki for what I believe means "recurring nonsense and stupidity" - that's kinda cool.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Ḥadīth

I "missedited" and changed Ḥadīth to Ḥādīth (extra diacritic over "a"). Can someone sort out please. Thanking you in anticipation. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Haha Dont worry Wikipedia's sledgehammer has cracked this nut JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Helene1982 making legal threats

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

---

Helene1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened legal action against me and other unnamed editors in connection with editing at Greg Kadel. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The threat has been removed in what I will accept as a recantation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Ziggy 2milli

Ziggy 2milli (talk · contribs) seems to not really be here to create an encyclopaedia so much as get paid for pushing unacceptable puff pieces about celebrities. A fair number of his "articles" are horrendously-sourced, and have generally died to AfD, with many of them being moved from draft space specifically for Google exposure. More recently, AfD'd pages get moved to draft in an attempt to prevent their deletion should the AfD end as delete. A listing of articles he's created (based on his talk page) is:

• Marlo Hampton · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] (G11'd)
• Doğukan Yüce · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; he attempted to remove the AfD notice twice)
• Justin Klosky · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd)
• Alex Quin · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd)
• Shyon Keoppel · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; attempted to move to draftspace during AfD. Requested a restore at REFUND and, when asked point-blank about being paid, denied it unconvincingly)
• Luieville · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (AfD'd; moved directly from draft to main space by him; he attempted to move it back to draft to dodge the AfD)
• Luca Maggiora · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing, sourcing is abysmal; he moved it from draft for Google exposure)
• Paul Fabritz · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing, sourcing is abysmal; he moved it from draft for Google exposure)
• YNW Melly · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions] (Live at time of writing and now being worked on by others as he's achieved notability in the interim)

Given the extensive lack of clue as to sourcing and the quite obvious attempts at SEO, I am proposing that Ziggy 2milli be topic-banned from creating biographical articles or drafts and from moving drafts to main space, both indefintitely. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeffed. MER-C 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Goodness, that was prompt. Saved me from writing up my effusive support. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes things easier. Now the focus should probably be on figuring out if Luca Maaggiora and Paul Fabritz are salvageable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

They may or may not be notable, but the articles look like WP:G11 material to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

YNW Melly is notable (and to be honest the article isn't G11 material). I would be tempted to send the other two to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

After GNews gave me nothing usable for either of them I've AfD'd the both of them (Maggiora and Fabritz). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And they have just made an unblock request, claiming that they aren't being paid - the same vacuous denial they made at REFUND when challenged, and one which beggars belief given his editing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was denied. Probably for the best (at least for now). --Kbabej (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ginjuice4445

Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gab Dissenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is an SPA exclusively editing on Gab (social network) and the closely related Gab Dissenter. ((43+10+242+2+20+6+2)/337 = 96% percent of their edits are on these pages, relevant talk pages, and admin noticeboard threads. They demonstrate an impressive degree of rejecting consensus and community input, most notably in this overwhelmingly rejected RfC they proposed for the replacement of well-sourced material for idiosyncratic, promotional interpretations completely unsupported by sources. In this RfC alone, they, per Softlavender[52], managed to produce 80 talk page posts within 29 hours. Aside from talk page sealioning and bludgeoning, they earned a month-long TBAN in January from Lord Roem for tendentious and disruptive editing, as well as continuing to edit war after being informed consensus on talk page. After I asked them to clarify if they have undeclared paid editing on March 2, they disappeared for a whole month, until today, when they, in direct violation of uw-paid, reverted a merger of the two articles [53][54] in violation of the consensus achieved at the merger RfC which they participated in, declaring in edit summary that "No consensus for merge on talk page, AT ALL". At this point I believe it is evident that this user is not here to improve the project, and only here to push a promotional POV in an extremely disruptive manner. Actions may be required to remedy this egregious WP:IDHT and WP:NOTHERE problem. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This edit is particularly egregious, because it's the exact opposite of what the close was.--Jorm (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I've fully protected the redirect, indefinitely. Should consensus change on that issue, it can be unprotected. Am looking at the rest of it now. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• If no diffs will be provided for alleged talk page disruption, a boomerang article ban should be considered. Tsumikiria has persistently made personal attacks on the talk page and is an overall net negative to the atmosphere there. FWIW, Ginjuice was wrongly T-banned in the first place in my opinion, while the paid editing concerns are very worrisome. wumbolo ^^^ 22:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh please. You know how to look at his contribs; that's the point of saying "all of his contribs are to here." Do you want a diff link for each of the 80 talk page posts mentioned up there? --Jorm (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  If you don't think Tsumikiria has provided sufficient explanation or links, you could perhaps ask them to provide more direct links before jumping straight to proposing a boomerang article ban for what appears to be no reason (and, notably, with no diffs of your own). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Here are diffs:

Battleground mentality and WP:BITE (29 October 2018) – Oh you blame me for the shooting? When did I say I endorse them? Good job constructing a straw man, and congrats that this is your 5th ever edit on Wikipedia. [55]

PA (29 October 2018) – Plus your experience and concept of racism may be far limited. [56]

Straw man argument (31 October 2018) – If by "there" you mean we have to erase any mention of white supremacist membership and state up front that Gab is a completely innocent angel of free speech human rights etc, please, no. [57]

Completely unnecessary comment (5 November 2018) – If you believe that Wikipedia shouldn't present things that are not to your liking, you are free to continue your quest on finding somewhere that serves you better. Maybe Conservapedia. [58]

PA (22 November 2018) – It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. [59]

PA (3 December 2018) – Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. [60]

Loaded question (18 December 2018) – D.Creish, are you ready to defend that "cuck", "f* off" and saying "build the wall" twice, first screenshot quote and second replying in the context of reading upon that the previously quoted person is a latino, isn't insult? [61]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – I hope this will be your last attempt at warring to whitewash the page to your POV narrative, else you might be walking toward a topic ban. [62]

Battleground mentality (20 January 2019) – You just happend to find the PG source I added have a particular sentence that favors your viewpoint and used it to flip the article to your narrative. Stop. [63]

Issuing an ultimatum / AGF failure (21 January 2019) – We will not submit to your incessant sealioning texts, regardless of the number, and we're not obliged to respond to every one of them, either. [64]

Battleground mentality (21 January 2019) – On the other hand, this editor is rather reminiscent in their arguments and tactics, to the previous POV pusher on this page User:Ridiceo now site-banned by the comunnity, with plain denials, exhausting sealioning, and demands to others to work for them. This will certainly not be the last civil POV pusher we see here, but we're becoming adept at this. [65]

Completely uncivil comment (22 January 2019) - (emphasis mine) This editor is likely trying to score brownie points from Andrew Torba, so that their outright abuse of process here can be painted as some sort of heroic dissent being "censored" by evil Communist editors on Gab's Twitter account. The editor is heading towards a topic ban at the very least per the standard process under this kind of situation - and this is exactly the advertising opportunity Torba wants. He's certainly quite updated on this talk page's development and may have already engaged in conversation in this page. [66]

Snarky (supervote) comment in (involved) RfC close (15 February 2019) – The proposer's disruptive sealioning efforts aside, [...] [67]

Righting great wrongs (28 February 2019) – (emphasis mine) The fact that they specifically advertised for the use on Wikipedia is indicative that this is Torba's retaliation against his failed canvassing attempts here. And we're not going to give him another chance. [68]

I did not make accusations of other policy violations because that would be unnecessary. I'm not comfortable with these comments though: [...] writer of the website Popehat. This should definitely be noted. Shall I contact him for more source? [69] and I've contacted Michael Hayden myself. [70] (emphasis mine), I simply notified him the existence of this discussion and that we hope his collegue publish his story in a future work. [71] (emphases mine), esp. in light of Tsumikiria accusing others of COI editing. Also look at this edit, where Tsumikiria strikes comments made by an IP editor, citing an apparently fictional "CheckUser-confirmed block evader" while the IP has never been blocked. wumbolo ^^^ 09:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's nice. And all these old diffs have WHAT, exactly, to do with User:Ginjuice4445, the actual topic of this thread? --Calton | Talk 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate this, although your analyses left out the context of those old discussions and would not be to the extent of being relevant and helpful to this thread other than potentially falling into tu quoque category. I've sure made mistakes. Joined last June, This is my first attempt to make major contributions to an article that isn't some subcultural video games and I have not read or informed of relevant guidelines until I was waist deep in the discussions. The first diff you cited, I was responding to someone calling me personally responsible for the October 2018 synagogue massacre. While the other things you cited for battleground mentality and else, in the presence of now-sanctioned WP:CPUSH editors, and SPAs, it'd be admirable if you could remain totally calm throughout, for that would be a difficult endeavour. The RfC close you protested, it was on an RfC that was almost unanimously opposed where the subject of this thread made those 80 posts within 29 hours. For the COI concern you mentioned, I was unaware of the COI guideline nor did I consulted another editor prior to tipping Hayden. The content in question were never published anywhere and were not for once added to the article. The comment by I striked where you commented "apparently fictional" was indeed made by a block evader who was checkuser rangeblocked by NinjaRobotPirate. They were previously blocked twice. Should you still wish to continue this discussion, it'd be a courtesy to start another section. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 01:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion regarding edit-warring / BLP policy at WP:AN3

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

---

Would any other admins care to weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Netoholic_reported_by_User:NorthBySouthBaranof_(Result:_)? I'm a little reluctant to use the tools here for reasons that you can see in the discussion (after all, I may be wrong), but equally I think it needs more opinions - and also it's 1.30am here. Black Kite (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Cleanup crew and block needed for 123.150.182.X for WP:NOTHERE by tagging so many talk page to merge for not valid reason

• 123.150.182.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.150.182.180 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Talk:Federal Republic of Germany, Talk:Germany/Archive 24
• Talk:United Mexican States, Talk:Mexico/Archive 11
• Talk:Republic of Iraq, Talk:Iraq
• Talk:Persia, Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran, Talk:Persia/Archive 2 Talk:Iran/Archive 19
• Talk:Transleithania, Talk:Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918)
• Talk:Kingdom of Sweden (1809–1905), Talk:Kingdom of Norway (1814-1905) , Talk:Union between Sweden and Norway
• Talk:Siam, Talk:Thailand/Archive 3
• Talk:South Korea/Archive 10, Talk:South Korea
• Talk:Kingdom of Spain, Talk:Spain
  • list not yet complete

See also above section #3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry/ sockpuppetry

But for this time, the ip tagging many talk page for no sense merge. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked Special:Contributions/123.150.182.0/24 for one month. The merge tags on the talk archive pages are nonsensical. There might conceivably be some valid edits among their contributions, but see also the earlier ANI about '3 IPs displaying signs of meatpuppetry'. 20:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk)

IP hopper who creates useless talk pages

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

---

The reported IP users are stale; no administrative action is required at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)}}

• 2402:800:6370:5A7:A56E:A58D:E241:F5E5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Creation of nonsense CSD G8 talk pages. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 10:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Likely the same person as 116.102.37.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who also created Talk:Rthro Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reported to AIV twice but no result. The two talk pages in question are Talk:Rthro and Talk:Voiced upper-pharyngeal stop. No diffs since we're dealing with deleted pages, of course. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this also User talk:Tcl29? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The IPs are both of Viettel Group in Vietnam. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Woshiyiweizhongguoren - The reported IPv6 address hasn't edited or made any changes on Wikipedia for over three days, and the reported IPv4 address for over a week. There's no need to block either IP user unless they resume making disruptive edits, and the disruption is current and in progress (happening right now). :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Which it is, see the above about Tcl29. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 19:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the deleted contributions of Tcl29 and the two IP users you reported are related in any way to one another... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

AfD cleanup needed?

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

---

Can someone have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Easson and clean up ? Aoziwe (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aoziwe: Done. I have added the AfD headers and transcluded the log. Although the nomination was created on 5 April, I have put it in today's log as people need to be properly aware of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Continued reversions after recently finishing block sentence for edit warring.

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

---

User in question: D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user edit-warred on Greeks in Albania and was blocked 72 hours because of it. Just on day later after being released, the user continues to revert edits, even though he was warned not to do it again. I already gave a warning to the user. INeedSupport ^:3 14:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User was already blocked, for 1 week. ST47 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

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

217.92.132.253 POV/edit-warring

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

---

217.92.132.253 (talk · contribs) seems to be editing articles from a very particular (in part pro-Stalin) POV, and edit-warring with anyone who disagrees with their changes. I first noticed these edits, which appeared to whitewash the antisemitism of Stalin's "rootless cosmopolitan" campaign, and this edit in particular, which, in my view, deceptively misrepresented and selectively quoted the author as saying exactly the opposite of what he says. I then noticed a pattern of similar editing in other articles; introduce a particular POV, then revert anyone who disagrees. I attempted to fix this in a couple of the other articles, but was reverted too, so I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Lol what? I added academic sources. Are academic sources now pro-Stalin? You're being ridiculous and hysterical. Also what edit warring has taken place? You cant just make vague generalised assertions without even presenting examples.217.92.132.253 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

At Rootless cosmopolitan you completely misrepresented the source you brought (Pinkus), having him say exactly the opposite of his thesis. Compare the before and after. As for evidence of edit warrring, here are a few links of you reverting various people on various articles (there are many more).[72][73][74][75][76][77] In pretty much every case you either add material that defends Stalinism/Marxism, or remove negative material about Stalin/Marxism, and then simply revert anyone who objects to your edits. In your brief time as a Wikipedia editor (under this IP address), you've gotten into a remarkable number of conflicts. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I think this diff is pretty telling; when you are restoring a "longstanding version" you tell editors to "follow WP:BRD". But when it's you changing the article from longstanding versions, then you just revert away, ignoring WP:BRD. Explain that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh so its edit warring to revert people? Well in which case you are edit warring as you have reverted me! With regards to me making edits that "in pretty much every case you either add material that defends Stalinism/Marxism", perhaps you could explain how adding information cited to academically-published books and written by academics themselves is pro-Stalinism? Why don't you send an email to the academics I have cited telling them how they have it all wrong and are defending Stalinism? I'm sure that will go down well lmao!217.92.132.253 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* It is not a good idea to continuously keep reverting other users without discussing the changes on the talk page of the article, and gaining consensus. A cursory assessment of your edits over the last couple of days shows that you have been reverting other users in a manner that might seem combative and unhelpful towards achieving Wikipedia's goal of producing an objectively-written encyclopedia. You seem well-acquainted with the project, so I am going to ask you to please take your disputes to the talk page and hash out a policy-based consensus? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. 217.92.132.253 (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What does "OK" mean? After writing this, your only edits have been to revert three different editors on five different articles[78][79][80][81][82], without even once opening up a section on a talk page for discussion. When you (yet again) advised User:7 qz to "follow BRD", was that intended to be ironic? Nearly Headless Nick, is this what you anticipated 217.* meant by "OK"? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* This is your final warning. If you continue to edit-war, your editing privileges will be revoked. Jayjg, I would have blocked on this occasion, but since they have not edited for the past few hours, I am going to give them another chance to make amends. In case the requested change in behaviour does not materialize, then I do not think that anyone would complain if another administrator were to take action. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Nearly Headless Nick you are being manipulated by a bad faith editor. I was going to post the following in response to the other user but there was an edit conflict so I will post it now "Stop beating a dead horse, stop WP:HOUNDING and stop misrepresenting my edits. Its quite honestly bad faith. Do I need to discuss on the talk page vandalism? The answer is no of course. Vandalism should be reverted on site. Regarding the other two edits, per BRD the onus was not on me to create a talk page discussion so as to gain consensus, the onus is on the others."217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nearly Headless Nick, he's clearly around and watching this thread, but still insists he does not need to discuss his edits; apparently others must follow WP:BRD, but he need not do so. 217.*, BRD quite clearly states that the onus is on you to create the discussion, rather than continuing to edit-war. You keep referring to it, so I advise you read it. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, User:Jayjg, you may want to look at my talk page. A Dolphin (squeek?) 13:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken a look. 217.* seems quite free with his warnings and threats; I'm not sure why he thinks he can edit-war with impunity, and that only others will be sanctioned for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jayig, per BRD the onus is on those challenging the longstanding version of the article which I was not doing.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

So when you changed the longstanding versions of Great Purge, Criticisms of Marxism, Rootless cosmopolitan, European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism, Eucharistic Congress of Dublin (1932), 1986 West Berlin discotheque bombing, The Black Velvet Band, and many others, and ruthlessly reverted anyone who objected to your changes to the longstanding versions of those articles (without even once opening up a talk page section), you were actually abiding by BRD? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Since I was informed to stop (and agreed) by Nearly Headless Nick I have only edited two of the articles above that you have listed. it is very dishonest of you to prevent the information that way. On The Black Velvet Band I was reverting vandalism and on Criticism of Marxism was reading longstanding material removed by you.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

And because I reverted him, he's threatening to take me to ANI and accusing me of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Oh boy, what fun! A Dolphin (squeek?) 13:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop hounding me and spitefully reverting my edits for no reason and there will be no issue between us.217.92.132.253 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"Spite"? When did I ever act out of spite to you? I was just reverting your edits because it contradicted what the sources said! A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok then please explain to me how for example my edit on Black Velvet Band contradicted the sources? lol do you really want to go down this road? Just own up lol.217.92.132.253 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(there was an edit conflict.) People make mistakes, OK? I forgot to check, but I knew most were contradictory due to your behavior. Also, you act like WP:BRD only applies to people besides you. A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:7 qz Then what are you waiting for? Self-revert already.217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.* you added the text to Criticisms of Marxism on March 31 and April 6: see here. Do you really imagine this makes it "longstanding material"? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Jayjg Ok fair enough. I recognise I am in the wrong on that occasion and will (in fact already have) stopped.217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, repeating what Jayjg said,

When a section is opened at WP:ANI, generally the behavior of all participants in the incident are examined... Along with reviewing WP:BRD, you should review WP:HOUND, which states: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. When an editor makes a series of edits that clearly violate WP:NPOV (and in the case of your treatment of Pinkus, seriously and deceptively violate it), then the practice is highly recommended.

A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• No idea why this is still languishing here...217.92.132.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) deserves a block to prevent further disruption.--MONGO (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is getting me annoyed. A Dolphin (squeek?) 14:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is concerning. By my count, 14 of the IP's last 15 edits have Tag: Undo, and several of them have Tag: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits. Looking at just the five edits from today (April 10), three (diff, diff, diff) restore content sourced to IMDB, a non-reliable source. From what I can tell, these three edits are the only recent edits that don't involve a pro-Soviet POV, and came after this ANI thread was opened. The other two edits today (diff, diff) revert Jay and Dolphin (WP:pointy), change the content to a more pro-Soviet POV, and are continuations of slow-motion edit-warring (clearly the editor is avoiding a 3RR violation but still edit warring). Same thing at European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. This is without even getting into the "rootless cosmopolitan" issue laid out by Jay. For those that may not be aware of the general background, words like "cosmopolitan", "intellectual", and "bourgeois" were sometimes used as euphemisms for "Jewish" during anti-semitic purges, so it matters whether our article says that a purge was "anti-intellectual" or "anti-Jewish"–indeed, it's the subject of much media and historical writing over the last century, particularly "rootless cosmopolitan" (a euphemism for "a Jew with no nation", first said by Stalin in 1946, between the holocaust and Israeli statehood). This IP account strikes me as a pro-Soviet-POV SPA. The "warning" on Dolphin's talk page post was basically a naked threat and shows a serious WP:battleground mentality, possibly rising to the level of harassment. (Related question: Does one give a dolphin a trout to say thank you for taking the time to clean all this up?) Thanks also to Jay for raising this matter. Pinging Ymblanter and My very best wishes who I think understand these issues better than I, in case they want to share their opinions. Leviv ich 15:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"From what I can tell, these three edits are the only recent edits that don't involve a pro-Soviet POV" Substantiate that or recant it. Also lets not WP:CANVASS, shall we? Regarding you saing "The ;warning; on Dolphin's talk page post was basically a naked threat" - that's exactly what warnings are! Warnings on wikipedia are "stop this behavior or I will take this to a noticebaord". In what way is that objectionable?217.92.132.253 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.92 has posted a canvassing template on my talk page. Leviv ich 16:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that Levivch has refused to back up his assertions speaks for itself I think.217.92.132.253 (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

217.*, anyone can look at your contributions, and see the pro-Stalin/Marxism bias in them. Do you think people here won't do that? Must Leviv actually bore everyone and waste his time by adding the diffs? Are you actually claiming that your edits (on relevant topics) have not been pro-Stalin/Marxism? If that's what you believe, then please say so outright, rather than just saying "prove it". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for a year, blocked proxy. Could be our globally banned friend Tobias Conradi, but I am not 100% sure. In any case, even if it were not a blocked proxy, a clear-cut case of disruptive editing: Blank reverts without any attempts to discuss at talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Is this BKFIP?

Special:Contributions/82.15.21.214, notably this and this among recent edits. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Could be, but it doesn't geolocate to BKFIP's usual location. I don't see a lot wrong with those edits, either, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that is standard for BKFIP -- many of their edits are defensible on the merits. In this case, the edit to Sylvester is not: some contributions really are fundamental and described as such in good sources, and some roles really are leadership roles and described as such in good sources. Also, saying that "the school of utilitarianism [was] later mentioned by Jeremy Bentham" is obviously less accurate and meaningful than "the school of utilitarianism [was] later made famous by Jeremy Bentham". Possibly third alternatives would be better in both cases. --JBL (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Nliz and bot accounts

Nliz (talk · contribs)

Hello Nliz, I hope that you do not mind me posting here. You seem friendly enough and thanks for posting to my talk page. We sometimes get bots doing odd experiments on Wikipedia and I was wondering if you were human.

To everyone else - all of Nliz's edits look the same.

• special:diff/891706704
• special:diff/837008824
• special:diff/831382141

Thoughts? How do we engage with contributors like this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could see if Nliz responds here, but this doesn't look like someone who has ever made a constructive edit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Changing ethnicities to "Jewish" by IP range

Related previous filing in in the archives.

An IP editor from the 185.113.0.0/16 range continues to change ethnicities from "FOOBAR" to "Jewish". Most recent example is [83]. Past IP edit examples: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90].

The motive behind these edits is unclear (anti-Semitic? Zionist?).

These edits from this range are sparse, so a range block would be inappropriate. I'm honestly not sure if there is anything that can be done (edit filter maybe?) but figured I should let admins know about it. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Changing a person's ethnicity to "Jewish" has at times created a lot of negative feedback. There was an enormous to-do over indicating Bernie Sanders is Jewish back in 2016. But there are different reasons for this reluctance so I, for one, would have to know why the IP editor was insistent over changing this aspect of a bio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a matter of "ethnicity" but rather changing what was previously a person's nationality or citizenship to "Jewish" in the lead sentence of a BLP. This is inherently disruptive because it promotes the inference that Jews are not legitimate citizens of the countries where they live and hold legal citizenship. The comparison to the 2016 "Is Bernie Sanders Jewish?" controversy on Wikipedia is not valid. Not one single editor ever advocated that the lead sentence of his biography should be changed from describing him as an American politician to a Jewish politician. In brief, the issue was instead whether an ethnic Jew who is not religiously observant should be described as "Jewish" in the infobox, which implies religious affiliation. That was a far more nuanced and intelligent discussion and completely different from going to articles about Swedish citizens and American citizens, removing their citizenship, and calling them "Jewish" instead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts mirror yours. It can easily be read as anti semitic. But even if it's not and we agf, it's at least disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It possibly didn't help that the first example was simply changing transatlantic to Jewish while preserving the British and American bit. The other examples more clearly illustrate the problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

EvergreenFir The relevant range is Special:Contributions/185.113.97.195/22, which still has a decent bit of other editing but is much more reasonable to be blocking. Judging by this unsurprising edit on the same IP as some of those edits, I think Liz's question should be answered. Anyhow, I'm testing on Special:AbuseFilter/953 a general filter to track labelling of people as "Jewish" in the lead (since this occurs more often than it reasonably should..). Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I see you've blocked 97.195; did you mean to block the range? I've also blocked 98.123 which was making the same edits. Looking through the range's contributions, while there is some productive editing there, I'm not absolutely convinced there's more than one editor behind it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I meant to block the IP, not the range; the politics related edits are quite possibly the same person but there's enough various editing stretching back years that I think rest is other people. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I lack the technical familiarity to evaluate whether the test filter is working, but provided it only provides a list of edits for humans to scrutinize (rather than warning editors not to say "Jewish", of course!) then this is a rare case where an edit filter actually seems warranted. This seems like a classic anti-Semitic focus (compare (((echo)))) and the distortion done to articles, including by the incidental removal of adjectives replaced, is significant. Of course, Wikipedia articles should always welcome sourced information about persons' religion and ethnicity, properly added by human editors. Wnt (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear the edits aren't intended in a positive way; this same editor is also interested in making it clear that Kurds are also not "real" Swedes (e.g. here). This edit clarifies why the editor makes these edits; it also shows that the editor edits from other IP ranges (in this case Special:Contributions/130.238.98.89), and that they've been at it for years, and seem unlikely to stop. If an edit filter can stop this, it seems like the best solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I like the edit filter as a means to flag possible problematic edits, but not as a means to disallow or warn for such edits. Users may legitimately be adding information on someone's Jewish religion or ethnicity to a lead sentence, for example a person who is a noted Jewish theologian or rabbi or something like that, and I'm not sure the edit filter could distinguish between such appropriate, good-faith edits and this sort of pointy flagging of Jewish people that our Swedish friend seems to be bent on doing. If we flag the edits, and have a place that collects the flagged edits for review, we have something that helps real humans solve the problem. --Jayron32 15:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm resurrecting this thread, because I noticed yet another edit by this relentless editor, made today. Since they have dynamic IP addresses, blocking each one clearly won't help much. @Galobtter:, can we get that filter? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is already this public filter Special:AbuseFilter/953 for Jewish, but even as a means of tracking it has the unfortunate problem of a high false positive rate [91]. This also doesn't help with stuff like Kurdish etc of course, I assume likely targets could be added but of course the more you add the more false positives you'll receive.. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see that while it does catch the problem edits, the false-positive rate is too high. User:Galobtter, is there a way of having the filter only look for the word "Jew" or "Jewish" in the article's first sentence? That will basically catch all the real problems, without the false-positives. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Es204L

• Es204L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I hate to bring this up for a second time, but Es204L is continuing to cause problems. The first discussion may be found here.

Refusal to respond to the first ANI

The problem I have is the fact that the user "left", only to return about 10 days later. He continued to edit despite being told:

• Please edit no further till you discuss all this at WP:ANI and these issues are resolved. DlohCierekim (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  You have edited without responding at ANI. Communication is required. Please respond before making further edits or I will be forced to block you. DlohCierekim (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The user never did respond to the first ANI discussion and it auto-archived without any actions having been taken. The user has been editing on a regular basis ever since. This is clearly in violation of the admin's instructions. @Dlohcierekim:

New additions of unsourced content/vandalism

• changed the death count for a storm without sources
• changed total again
• changed total once more
• removed a note and changed total without a source
• changed total without a source

These edits may seem minor, but they are very disruptive to the project as people have to consistently revert them in order to maintain accurate and truthful material. There may be more than what I have linked above. Those are the ones I know of currently. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Noah^Talk 23:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ahrtoodeetoo

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

E. W. Priestap was the assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division from 2015 to 2018. Testimony given by him to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian officials had used "fake news and propaganda" during the campaign for the U.S. presidential election in 2016, seems entirely relevant to his article. Editor Ahrtoodeetoo has removed the statement, as he has done three times previously with similar information [92], [93] and [94] (4 reverts in total). These reversions are against policy. The matter has been discussed on the article talk page without success. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth has refused to explain how this material is encyclopedic / biographically significant (i.e. satisfies WP:NOT) and instead has repeatedly DEMANDED that I restore the content. I suspect they don’t understand how to build consensus and so have resorted to foot stomping. I am on vacation with limited bandwidth through April 17. R2 (bleep) 14:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this what you're calling "demanding"? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. R2 (bleep) 19:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive timeline editing

User:XxCrunchY is making continued disruptive edits to the Slipknot timeline without any discussion in the talk page. He has not sought consensus for his changes and they are considered disruptive due to his repeated attempts to make changes. MetalDylan (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I can see now that this isn't the first instance of disruptive by this user according to their talk page. MetalDylan (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for a mean comment made a decade ago?

On April 8, User:Enigmaman blocked User:Ribbon Salminen for "repeated personal attacks" first for three years and then for one year. That account has not made an edit for over a year. Looking through Enigmaman's edits, following the block he made this comment to a nearly ten-year old discussion, including a diff where the blocked user made an admittedly mean comment about him. The comment is also listed on one of Enigmaman's subpages. That comment was made literally a decade ago and led to a block back then. I don't see how Enigmaman's new block follows any blocking policy at all. For full disclosure, the blocked account is my old account, before I did a WP:CLEANSTART. I'm not particularly happy about outing myself, but this was such weird behavior from an admin that I felt I had to do something. I would like the block removed although I have no intention of returning to the old account. I tried to reach out to Enigmaman, but heard nothing but silence. [REDACTED - Oshwah] 17:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: I've redacted and suppressed the identity of the creator of this discussion. It's clear that he/she self-outed themselves very reluctantly, and in order to file this report here. In order to protect the identity of the user following their clean start and to keep the user's identity private until they willingly disclose this information publicly, this action was determined to be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Unblocked. If you had just asked, I would've unblocked, although I'm confused about the motivation. Enigma^msg 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You were asked. And it's your motivation that seems much more confusing. You obviously made a bad mistake here, and pretending that you didn't only makes it much worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me, Enigmaman, but that's all you've got to say for yourself? I'm confused about your motivation. EEng 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC) And you shouldn't be closing a thread that's about your own behavior. [95]

The user couldn't have asked without risking self-disclosure of their identity and connection to the account. They felt the need to discuss it here instead, and obviously for good reason; unfortunately, they had to self-disclose their identity following a clean start in order to do so (which I've resolved). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oh wow this is an incredibly bad block which requires a very good explanation. GiantSnowman 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• A 3 year block (that was lowered to a year) for an editor that hasn’t edited since January of 2018? Could you show the personal attack that led to this block? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Enigmaman: Please explain your actions here. Paul August ☎ 21:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Enigmaman making a bad block needs an explanation as well as an apology to the community. Closing the thread about your behavior is every bit as egregious. Please respond to the concerns here and try to restore some sense of trust in your ability to act responsibly as an admin. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't even see where an explanation is needed. This is blatant retaliation and grudging. Look at the timeline:

• 20:14 8 April, Enigmaman updates his "disaster" page. On that same page, he has preserved a diff of this 2009 personal attack by Ribbon Salminen.
• Three minutes later, he blocks Ribbon Salminen, a highly established account in good standing, that has not edited in well over a year and was supposedly retired. The block was a draconian 1 year, for "repeated personal attacks", reduced from an initial decision to block for 3 years. Enigma did not provide the required block notification. Enigma also deleted Ribbon's talk page header, in violation of WP:TPO.[96]
• A few minutes later, he responds to a comment from 2009 and posts the diff of the personal attack.[97]

This would have gone undetected if not for the fact that the user has cleanstarted. The abusive block forced the user to out their connection. Enigma admits that they would have unblocked if simply asked, which means they're not even trying to pretend that there was any legitimate justification for the block. Yet, they suggest that the user has some sort of questionable motivation? This is a serious issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Enigmaman - I like you a lot as a person and respect you completely, but man... as an uninvolved editor and admin reading through this thread, you do need to answer the numerous calls for an explanation here, and you do need to fully outline and explain this block and what happened. My guess is that you didn't realize how old the comment was, thought it was recent by mistake, and applied a block accordingly. Even if this were the case, why such a long block duration? Three years? Even one year is quite a long time... what was the reason behind such a long block? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• When I first arrived at this thread, this seemed like very strange behaviour on the part of the blocking admin. Then I came across their first two unsuccessful RfAs — Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2. The phrase "intentionally deceptive" used by one of the !voters struck out. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Lets not dive into past RFA discussions and use decade-old comments to imply any accusations or a connection to this situation without a clear explanation of a connection and reason for doing so. I don't think that it's constructive or relevant here... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't have posted these under ordinary circumstances. However, the observations and evidences presented in the RfAs taken together with this latest example of what appears to be an egregious abuse of power (as highlighted by Swarm above), combined with their deceptive response when questioned about it, suggests a long-term pattern of abuse. This means that, at the very least, their recent administrative actions need to be reviewed by the community. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 00:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Thank you for responding and providing additional thought and clarity regarding your original comment. It's helpful in that others will understand your thoughts and the connection you're seeing, rather than possibly seeing it as an implied accusation based on completely random things. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for bringing this to the community’s attention, R2, even at the risk of “outting” yourself (and a thank you to Oshwah for amending that). If this is indeed retaliatory, it’s an egregious breach of community trust, and an obvious misuse of tools. And given what Swarm came across when looking at the block, I’m not sure we should immediately assume good faith here. Per ADMINACCT, User:Enigmaman should explain both blocks, which are indeed rather Draconian. Even if others feel a block was appropriate in either case, rather than mediation or any number of other ways to reach a problematic editor, or correct disruptive behaviour... YEARS(s) should never be an administrator’s first resort. Given the user page, two severe blocks within a short duration, and one in which the user was obviously absent (who doesn’t check the contributions page?), I have to wonder if there are other blocks that should be reversed as well. Please explain yourself. (Non-admin here, obviously. I just find this concerning). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  You might be onto something. I decided to take a look at some of Enigmaman's recently issued blocks, and almost instantly stumbled upon this block, undone by User:Boing!_said_Zebedee as "bad block." Can't say I'm surprised. The question isn't "if" but "how many." Disgusting. 78.28.54.200 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh dear, yes, that one. The context is at User talk:Bloger#Yet another warning, and my unblock rationale was that "This was clear abuse of admin rights in a content dispute". An utter disgrace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This is very disappointing to see - especially knowing that further investigation may find more issues and discover that this is an ongoing trend. Boing! said Zebedee, was there an ANI or noticeboard discussion regarding this block and unblock? Or just what I'm seeing in this section of Bloger's user talk page? Did Enigmaman offer an explanation or apology following this block that was satisfactory? Where was it made? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That's all there was that I know of - I just saw Bloger's unblock request when checking CAT:RFU, and there was no subsequent response from Enigmaman anywhere that I saw. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee - Aww, that's not good. There appears to be a possible trend with Enigmaman performing bad blocks, and Enigmaman's inability to take control, follow up, explain what happened, and own up and apologize (what I'd expect to see per WP:ADMINACCT). Not good... very concerning to see. I also don't like the way he followed up after applying the block either. All things aside regarding the situation and block, we shouldn't be feeding trolls or making comments that will exacerbate the situation and lead to more disruption in retaliation by the recipient. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’d recommend admins and editors just read his current talk page as well. There seems to be some concern among others regarding the severity of even his most recent admin actions. Not trying to prejudice any opinions here, but it does seem there’s a pattern of people asking why certain actions were taken, and rolling it back. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm reviewing Enigma's block logs, and inappropriate blocking practices seem to be the rule, rather than the exception:

• No notification, block log entry of "made better" (a personal pot-shot)[98]
• No notification, personal attack in block log entry[99]
• No notification, bizarre block duration, personal attack in log entry[100]
• No notification, no block log entry[101]
• Personal attack in notification[102]
• No block log entry[103]

It seems Enigma's been getting away with petty misconduct for so long, that he's started venturing out into making blatantly illegitimate blocks for personal vengeance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joel37

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

---

Joel37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joel37 is going around the automobile articles replacing pictures, most of which are already been used in the article. I been warning him several times to stop with the disruptive editing but doesn't seem to listen. --Vauxford (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you mean this sequence of edits, they all look reasonable enough to me; Joel37 is replacing older photos of vehicles in infoboxes with images of the most recent model in that line, which I certainly wouldn't consider intentional disruption given that it's generally going to be a reasonable assumption that most readers are likely looking for information about the current model, not former iterations. Whether or not each specific image is preferable is a content issue, and not something which requires administrative intervention. What I am noticing is a distinct lack of discussion on your part at User talk:Joel37, where you've instead chosen to spam a stack of template messages. ‑ Iridescent 20:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes the older ones are the most iconic in the article, such as the Fiat Panda and has been there for a long time. The reader can just go down the article of the generation of model they want to look at. But the way this user done it is very disruptive in nature. --Vauxford (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's twice you've claimed that, but we're not going to take action unless you indicate why you consider this a situation that needs sysop actions. "Someone has an opinion that differs to mine" does not constitute disruption. ‑ Iridescent 20:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

To be honest I thought that was the right thing to do is warn the user, because I thought they were being disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not an issue for ANI, you disagree with someone, no need to sound the admin bugle. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I didn't know what to do, I thought that what people do if they spot a editor being potentially disruptive. The scale of what this user was doing was quite severe so I didn't know what to do. So I take it now I got myself into more trouble then the user I reported, great. --Vauxford (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Then, hopefully, you have learned that the thing to do if you disagree with edits that someone has made is to talk to them, rather than assume that you are right and they are wrong and that everyone else will agree with you. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I just thought that what you do when a newish editor acts like that, I guess not but from my impression of what people do on here it very similar. What if they refuse to and just keep going, that what I thought was going to happen so I took it here. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me. --Vauxford (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Anonymous user 161.73.194.242

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

---

On 21 of February 2019, 161.73.194.242 left me a message on my talk page called “We will never surrender”. The message said “Britain will never surrender to your s***ty yank spellings. The message was vulgar, and inappropriate. The message also included a big picture of Winston Churchill. I think 161.73.194.242 needs to be blocked because of this. Any thoughts? Metric Supporter 89 (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that we're not going to block an IP address for a comment made 7 weeks ago, especially as that IP appears to be a library computer at a University. Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 161.73.194.241, User talk:161.73.194.241 and the linked discussions. This was just an IP adding silly warnings an reverting legitimate edits. Just forget about it unless they come back, see Special:Contribs/161.73.128.0/17 although there has been more edits from that range it doesn't look like its the same person. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Possible ads or promotion

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

---

Does this count as ads or promotion? I don't know who added it or when it was added. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep, blatant commercial link spam. Thanks for removing it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. P. S. Did you check who added it? If it were added not too long ago, have you blocked the user who added it? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 23:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No, I haven't looked back that far - I'm in bed with my laptop right now and just about to get to sleep, but I might have a look in the morning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It was added by this IP user on November 1, 2018. I've looked through the two articles from the IP user's contributions and I don't see this domain present anywhere. Looks like you caught and deleted one that managed to stick around for so long. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

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