Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959

Esszet's repeated accusations of article ownership toward me

Esszet has made repeated accusations against me regarding Too Much Too Soon (album):

• On one occasion at ANI by filing a complaint against me in April
• Here in the aforementioned article talk page in April
• In an ensuing RfC at said talk page shortly after
• Back again at ANI filing a complaint against me in July, which was found to be "over the top" by the closer Basalisk.
• And again today here at the article talk page.

There's no assumption of good faith, NEVER HAS BEEN, all over some of the pettiest textual and stylistic minor changes to article space, considering the effort they've exuded. And I request admin intervention in case the user should revert again; there's a competency issue here when the user fails to understand the BRD process involves redirecting their efforts toward a discussion at the talk page and giving the other party a chance to respond, rather than using it as an excuse to restore their preferred revision again. Because I find it difficult to communicate further when every thing from this guy is accompanied by offensive ownership accusations. Dan56 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

1. It looks a lot like you have reverted basically anything the editor has attempted to do on the article, down to very highly subjective and pretty much meaningless word choice, often without so much as leaving an edit summary.
2. The most conspicuous thing missing from this conversation is you.
3. Which is pretty much the issue from the last ANI you link to... lack of communication and a closer giving you advice about ownership.
4. So... basically stop acting like you own the article and people will stop accusing you of owning the article. TimothyJosephWood 17:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Literally everything you just said can be also be said of Esszet. But thanks! (for nothing:-) Dan56 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You should probably consider yourself lucky if nothing is what you get instead of a WP:BOOMERANG, considering you've reverted dozens of times and barely acknowledged that the talk page exists. When you did it seems to have gone something like this:

• You really wanna overcomplicate an image caption just to appease someone who started an edit war? I'll say this for the last time: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT ANY BAND; THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE IS TOO MUCH TOO SOON; THE SUBJECT OF THE IMAGE IS THE NEW YORK DOLLS. I repeat THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT THE NEW YORK DOLLS
• why are you here? Go away.
• He's also accusing me of article ownership. He's also being a hound, and a dick
• How's the view from your high horse, Esszet?

Besides that, I count... I dunno, a half dozen warnings on your talk page just in the last 50 edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and that's not counting the close from the prior ANI.

So I suppose I can try to spell it out more clearly: Welcome to Wikipedia. This is a collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia. Discussion is not an option, the talk page is not a suggestion, and ANI is not an alternative. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly give your attempt at researching me an "A" for an effort, guy. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You're a prolific content creator, and I don't think anyone would detract from the valuable contributions you've made. I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to be lulled into an isolated comfort when you find yourself churning away in a corner of the project that no one else is on, but I would suggest that you immediately watchlist something like The Teahouse, and force yourself to respond as helpfully as you can to a few honest questions a week from clueless good faith editors, to give yourself some perspective on how interconnected this whole thing is, and how we're expected to be cordial to one another, even when the edit seems silly, or the answer seems obvious. You pretty obviously need to get out of that isolated comfort zone, because when someone touches one of your babies, it seems pretty glaringly obvious that you've been in it for far too long. TimothyJosephWood 21:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

NOPE! Totally not lulled into an "isolated comfort" @Timothyjosephwood:, but rather entirely unresponsive or civil to those who have never to begin with assumed good faith and won't drop it in any messages my way since. Dan56 (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Then you're going to have to do better than a comment in April, because it looks an awful lot like this has been mostly dead for months, until the user dared to post a comment on the talk page of your article yesterday, and a (totally exasperating I'm sure) discussion that lasted exactly three edits (during which you also managed to cut their comment in half with your reply) taxed your patience to the point that you needed an ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And round two! I suggest a ban of you two reverting each other. Second, I suggest that this article be fully protected for three days so we can sort this out. Third, I suggest that this ANI be closed as this will not help anything. And fourth, I think that it would be best if you two were not allowed to edit that article for a period of 6 months. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur with RileyBugz completely.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Basalisk See what I mean? Esszet (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

And I hope his lack of civility here is also taken into account. Esszet (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, really the reason for it is so that you will stop, honestly, wasting everybody's time, including your own. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

^?? Are you trying to get yourself in trouble? Esszet (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Trouble only for anyone who slights Esszet in any way, I guess (*roll eyes till stuck in back of skull*) Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant both you and Dan56, if that wasn't clear. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Christ almighty. So... Someone jog my memory, what is the civility restriction thing? It's been a few months since I've seen it, but whatever that is I propose that on Dan for at least six months as a boomerang. TimothyJosephWood 22:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Civility restrictions were once used frequently, but seem to have fallen out of fashion in recent years, probably because of the inherent difficulty in defining what is and isn't "civil". It's much easier, in my opinion, to make a judgment about what is or isn't a personal attack than it is to determine civility, mainly because what's "civil" is rather in the eye of the beholder and has a significant social and cultural aspect to it. Some editors also object to the "school ma'rm-ish" nature of civility blocks and restrictions, seeing the policing of language and attitude as not being the rightful business of admins. Whichever way you slice it, the entire civility issue is a can of worms, and I suspect that contributed to the fall off (to the point of practical disappearance) in the use of civility restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• They fell out of use because when any admin tried to enforce them against persistently uncivil editors, the editor in question would just get one of their pet admins to reverse it. There is also the problem that due to the Super Mario effect, persistently uncivil Admins could not be prevented in any reasonable way except by an arbcom case. So with the two pronged response of a)seeing favoured editors get away with it, b)seeing fellow admins get away with it, its not surprising no one much bothers with it. And why longterm uncivil editors end up wasting so much time - as the only way these days any action is taken is by raising enough noticeboard complaints that people end up tired of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• OID: That's one interpretation of a possible cause, but I don't believe I subscribe to it, since my experience is that the number of admins who are frequently uncivil is extremely low, and therefore is unlikely to have been a factor. No, I'll stick by my own evaluation that the difficulty of enforcing them with any consistency, and general pushback against incivility policing are the primary factors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of this seems to be unequivocal sneering (I'd be shocked if you could find a group of people, in any time and place, who don't think "Thanks for nothing" is rude and offensive), so I don't think there'd be much of an issue in this case, but it probably wouldn't be all that difficult to get him sanctioned for personal attacks instead. Esszet (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you'll forgive me if I don't want to block someone with more GAs than I have article creations. You know, because encyclopedia. Maybe an indefinite 1RR that can be appealed in six months? TimothyJosephWood 23:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not six months, but how about two weeks to start, and then we'll take it from there? Esszet (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

And keep in mind that people unaware of the 1RR wouldn't know to report him for effectively violating it by undoing their edits without using the undo feature (as he almost certainly would). Esszet (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your only interactions with me have been regarding minor caption changes and your uncompromising stance favoring sentence fragments rather than complete sentences at Too Much Too Soon (album), which you have been so stubborn as to make a series of edit wars, an RfC, and ANI complaints resulting in no action in your favor. Please at least don't insult us with insincere concerns about my snarky remarks toward other editors or anything else. Your WP:OWN accusations have been desensitizing enough, seriously. Dan56 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have watchlisted the page. Any edit warring on that article from now on will result in immediate blocks for editors involved. @Dan56: you might get fewer accusations of ownership if you didn't act like you own articles. I tried to explain this nicely when I closed the last ANI and now I'm telling you straight - you don't own any of the articles on Wikipedia. Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation or discussion is disruptive and doesn't help anyone. You've received lots of very helpful advice on your talk page; it's time to adhere to it. If you can't do that then I suggest you take Too Much Too Soon off your watchlist and find another image caption to work on. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

What a crock. An image caption to work on? "Constantly reverting other editors' contributions without explanation"?? What do you call this? And this attempt to reach out to the guy and this before it? As opposed to this unexplained revision to begin with? Don't be insincere. Yes, your "advice" sounds very persuasive and intimidating, but it's inaccurate too. Just telling you straight. Dan56 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are any other admins seeing WP:IDHT behaviour from Dan56? Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't mouthing off to an admin enough to get you blocked? Esszet (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well admins shouldn't be held on a pedestal and Dan56 hasn't said anything worse than what I see on a weekly basis here. Continuing to WP:OWN articles would be more concerning than a few snarky comments. Honestly, the fact that this is all over a few petty edits is just absolutely ridiculous to me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

1) Admins do deserve more respect than ordinary users 2) It isn't just me (if he's here on a weekly basis, you know what I mean) 3) If he keeps saying and saying stuff like this, shouldn't he be blocked anyway? Esszet (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, admins shouldn't get more respect than everybody else. Second, as mentioned, Dan56 is a prolific content creator, so he shouldn't be blocked, he should just be banned from editing that article (and you probably should too, as you are also occasionally reverting him). Otherwise, we would have a lot less good articles about music. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in what I'm trying to do to that article, and in any event, something has to be done, and it has to be pretty severe. If it turns out that he has to be blocked for a while, I guess we'll just have to do without him. Esszet (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does it have to be "pretty severe"? I don't think that this has extended to any other articles, so a ban on both of you editing the article (and interacting, to prevent any more future problems) should work. And remember, according to WP:NOPUNISH, we shouldn't be using blocks as punishment. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If TimothyJosephWood is right, there were 6 warnings on his talk page in 50 edits, and if his conduct here is anything to go by, more moderate sanctions simply won't work. I didn't know that blocks weren't supposed to be used as punishments, but as I said, it doesn't have to be a block, just something. Esszet (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Then would my solution be adequate? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it, let's ask BMK and MShabazz what they think. Esszet (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe getting blocked for those comments alone would be excessive, but he should still be blocked anyway. Esszet (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Esszet who are you to be giving orders on what should be done? The way you are calling for a block of a severe nature is incredibly punitive and that is not how things are handled around here. Dan56 is a prolific content creator; I see no legitimate reason to get rid of his expertise just to appease you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Did I say it was just about me? Esszet (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

All editors should be treated with respect, admins and non-admins alike. Paul August ☎ 20:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"mouthing off to an admin enough to get you blocked"? God, I hope not. It gives me chills just to think of being part of a community where questioning or speaking disrespectfully to the upper class gets you punished. Wikipedia doesn't have an upper class, by the way. Administrators are just a subset of editors who are trusted enough to have certain powers to use in enforcing consensus that others don't have. Sarcastically saying, "thanks for nothing" to an administrator should have exactly the same effect as saying it to a non-administrator. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, that probably is too harsh, but you can be sanctioned for saying that to anyone, right? Esszet (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, TimothyJosephWood isn't an admin, and Dan's done a lot more than just that here. Esszet (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: there are lots of communities like that in today's world: they're called businesses. Esszet (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and we all hate them. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 00:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but they've managed to stick around for a while… Esszet (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Mouthing off at admins will not get you blocked. Mouthing off in such a way to be personally attacking any editor or admin will get you blocked. One or two mild attacks will get you a warning, repeatedly attacking someone is when the blocking starts. Unless, of course, the attack is so severe as to warrant an immediate block (threats of death/violence, racism, etc). Nothing Dan56 said above is remotely sanctionable. Blackmane (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't uncivil enough? Esszet (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, isn't saying "trouble only for anyone who slights Esszet in any way" pretty much the same thing as saying "you're an arrogant, hypersensitive [insert expletive here]"? Esszet (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Not really. It is only a snarky remark. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 02:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Really? That's the implication and that's why it's nasty. Esszet (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

(non-admin comment} From what I can tell, Dan56 worked on the article to bring it to Featured Article status... and I understand watching out to ensure that the articles keep that status. However, no one owns an article at Wikipedia... and there has been uncivil, ownership type behavior that is not called for. Although the behavior does not seem to be as extreme, there are some snippy comments by Esszet that are not helpful. Even so, I think this is a potential Boomerang issue and WP:IDHT].–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a thin line between article stewardship and ownership, and I think Dan56 needs to learn the difference. I also think the administrator squad need to grow some spines and stop making excuses for editors who are prolific creators of good content and are major-league assholes. At a certain point, you (collective you) will either need to rein in Dan56 or you will start to drive away editors who have the potential to become equally prolific creators of good content without being assholes. Dan56 isn't the first such editor, and I'm sure he won't be the last, but the complete inability of Wikipedia to deal with such personalities is a serious problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

When Dan56 didn't like what I wrote about his ownership of an article, as evidenced by edit-warring over a caption to an image, he went to a pair of articles I had recently edited and vandalized captions to their images.[7][8] After he had done the same thing to another editor who incurred his wrath.[9] He should have been indeffed at the time, but—as I wrote—the admins are spineless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And you replied in both instances with edit summaries that needed to be redacted. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My edit summary in both instances was "rv asshole". You'd have to ask the admin involved why that warranted RevDel when racist and antisemitic edit summaries and content typically don't get RevDeled, and why calling out an asshole's behavior was worse than Dan56 acting like an asshole in the first place. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You know how things work around here: let he who is without incivility cast the first ANI thread. And while I highly doubt that anyone is going to sanction either user for a dispute that for all intents and purposes died down months ago, they may likely take a good hard look at you for continued personal attacks. So I'd probably recommend just cooling off a bit, and let this thread die quietly like it should probably have done a week ago, for everyone's sake. TimothyJosephWood 21:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, you seem to be more than a little confused. I didn't start this thread, Dan56 did, and it was less than a week ago. I was summoned here -- yesterday. I don't need to "cool off" because I don't interact with Dan56. I have better things to do than edit war with assholes over periods at the end of captions, such as banging my head against a cement wall. If anybody needs to cool off, it's the inveterate edit warrior who started this thread. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't think he deserves to be sanctioned anymore? Esszet (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they're going to get it now, given that this thread is almost a week old and there's been no pronounced continuing disruption, but I have a strong suspicion that they're going to get them sooner or later if they continue, which I suspect they will. If you take anything away from this, it should probably be that you should conduct yourself immaculately, even and especially in heated debates, because when things end up here, and everyone involved has a bit of blood on their hands, things usually end up in a stalemate. TimothyJosephWood 22:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I could start pinging other people he's has issues with – all I'd have to do is go through the history of his talk page. Esszet (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I know. I've gone through it thoroughly, twice now, as well as their editing history and yours. This thread could be used in a future report to establish a clear pattern of disruptive behavior, and Dan56 should be aware that they're treading on thin ice, but while there was a clear overreaction, there is not a clear current imminent disruption that would be prevented by sanctions, and that's what sanctions are designed to do. Such is the burden of balancing building an encyclopedia with all the nasty bits involved in doing so. TimothyJosephWood 01:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I'll clarify my intent here since it could obviously seem to conflict with my comment below. What I mean is that current imminent disruption sanctions are easy peasy, and we hand them out all the time. The alternative is a long-term-pattern type community sanction, which is often difficult to impossible to get a clear consensus on, and often just not worth trying until the immediate disruption starts up again. But if folks wanna go for it, then go for it. TimothyJosephWood 14:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I realise that this has become a bit of a mess. But given the long-running consistent nature of his conduct, I would be concerned if nothing was remedied at least partly due to admin exhaustion, as has happened several times before with Dan56: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Conduct_of_Dan56 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive326#User:Dan56_reported_by_User:Binksternet_.28Result:_.29. As a further, separate example of Dan56's recent behaviour: he has been repeatedly making this edit: [10] to The Life of Pablo, which has been reverted by five editors: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] before I tried to discuss the edit with him in the talk page, which went nowhere, with Dan56 claiming that there had not been ongoing reversions of his edit from multiple editors and that I was lying: [16]. Realising the futility of trying to discuss an edit with Dan56, I opened a Request for Comment, and when the first person who responded disagreed with Dan56's edit: [17], Dan56 began badgering them, aggressively calling them "buddy" and "pal": [18] [19] before accusing them of being "in cahoots" with me before signing off with: "thanks for your opinion, as wrongheaded as it may beeee!1!1!1": [20]. While I understand that Dan56 has contributed to GAs, there must be a limit to how much that can let you get away with. When Dan56 is right, it's great, but when he's wrong, there's very little individual editors can do to remedy it and it makes working on articles he works on an unpleasant, frustrating experience. Dan56 has been criticised for not using the talk pages, but it's arguably worse when he does. This is a social WP:COMPETENCE issue. Cjhard (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And as soon as someone says "let the issue rest", there's Cjhard to stir the pot. Cj trolls my edits, and that lead to him now trolling Dan56's edits because Dan and I agreed on a subject against Cjhard. In fact, Cj currently has another open report against me. How many experienced editors can one inexperienced editor take issue with at the same time before they realize that they are the one at fault. Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible solution: 1RR

• Based on the concerns expressed by the editors above, I suggest this: Dan56 is limited to 1RR indefinitely; this includes rewriting a newly revised body of text or any other forms of editing that could be construed as gaming the 1RR. Unfortunately, this does not address Dan's behavior at talk pages but it may compel him to compromise more often with those he is suppose to collaborate with. After six months, Dan can appeal his 1RR restriction at the appropriate forum.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Limiting Dan56 to 1RR is a generously fair way of remedying some of his negative behaviour while retaining his positive contributions. Cjhard (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Agree that this is a fair solution.–CaroleHenson (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you block/limit users like Dan56 and myself, the vandals win. Wikipedia loses.Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am confused Kellymoat. Are you saying that Esszet is a vandal? I may not agree with all of their comments and actions, but I don't see how they rise to the level of vandalism.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not saying anyone was specifically vandalizing anything. I am saying that limiting Dan to one revert (yes, I know that there are exceptions to the 1rr limit) is going to be to the detriment of Wikipedia overall. Face it, there are more criminals than crime fighters. Limiting what the crime fighters can do simply allows the criminals to get away with more stuff.Kellymoat (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I don't agree, but I understand your point. Thanks for the clarification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your point. Yeah... I actually don't at all. A sanction that I understand won't prevent the user from reverting vandalism is going to help the vandals win, is basically a non-argument, other than the fact that KM seems to think what we really need are wiki-vigilantes empowered to ignore things like CIVIL and 3RR because they interpret IAR to mean "I'll damn well do what I please." TimothyJosephWood 13:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

What WP needs is fewer people willing to do damage to articles. When that happens, there will be no reason for anyone to ever revert anything, and we can all sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya. But until then, someone needs to be willing to review each and every edit that comes through their very large watchlist to prevent vandalism.

It may be off track and long winded, but here's a little tidbit of information - I went from being an "editor" to a "reverter" when I was involved with an incident that involved someone adding their name to the personnel section of music articles. This guy gave himself credit to over 500 band/album articles, with some of the entries being there for 9 years. NINE YEARS. And then, over that amount of time, you know what happens - his name gets credited on other sites because they use WP as their source. So, today, even though his name has been scrubbed from WP, it is still out there on the web and searchable via google because no one bothered to revert the errors. This means that, today, people can legitimately add his name back into WP because they have web sources saying it is true. There's even people selling his memorabilia online.

Since that incident, my watchlist has grown. And every edit that comes through gets reviewed by me - EVERY EDIT. I try my best to catch things as they come in so that nothing ever gets by for 9 years again. I watch my watchlist, and revert things that need reverted. I don't keep track of "well, today this article has already been reverted 3 times so I better let it go for 24 hours" No, I revert it when it comes in. Nine years, some nobody had his name posted to 500 articles. No one caught it. We need people willing to patrol. Obviously admins and other "trusted" editors can't be trusted. Kellymoat (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

And that's probably why you've been blocked three times for edit warring. TimothyJosephWood 14:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point.Kellymoat (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion. This isn't the place for it.Kellymoat (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Kellymoat, for suggesting that editors who dare to disagree with Dan56 are as bad as editors who add themselves to the personnel sections of music articles. I don't believe I've ever interacted with you before, and frankly, with an attitude like that, I'm glad to see that you're semi-retired. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I cannot help but suspect Kellymoat is in disagreement with the terms outlined because of their block history and Cjhard, one of the editors who has reported them, has expressed his support for the proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While I may have been made aware of this report through the troller, my thoughts on the matter have not been swayed. I don't play that game. And I have told the little troller as much on numerous occassions, but he is unwilling to accept it.

In fact, I voiced my opinion before adding my "oppose". I clearly did not hide how or why I arrived here. Kellymoat (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with it. I don't expect that it's going to get overwhelming support, but no objections here, and it's at least some resolution, and if violated will be fairly clear cut and won't require an ANI or ANEW thread so long that our admins start to contemplate self harm. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support So long as Dan56 is given appropriate leeway to revert obvious vandalism (because I know what the edit-warring policy says, how it is often applied in practice, and that many of Dan56's reverts are genuine vandalism-fighting), I support limiting him to a 1RR. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support: for the reasons I (and several other people) have explained previously. Esszet (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Fine, do it, I don't care. I waste too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads, and this would encourage me in the right direction: away. So, just in case I wasn't emphatic enough before: SUPPOOOOORRRRRTTTTTTT :) Tbh, I probably won't even appeal it, if I'm even still around by that time. Dan56 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't he great, folks? Let's give him a hand. Esszet (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You should consider being civil, even when responding to someone who isn't. Kellymoat (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This should help Dan56 become the best editor he can. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note - Dan has apparently retired but I think it is still in the best interest of the project to continue this discussion and implement a 1RR if there is consensus for it. I have seen many editors claim they have retired, only to return when the heat is off them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think getting Dan56 blocked from Wikipedia for six months is unfair, because he been editing for years and add a lot of articles in to good article standards. Now It look like he has quit from editing. What a shame. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• @TheAmazingPeanuts: please re-read (or read it for the first time) my proposal and tell me where I stated that we should block Dan for six months.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Sorry about that, I didn't read it that good in the first time. If this have nothing to do about him getting blocked, then why he retired? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: I cannot speak for Dan but my best guess is he did not want a restriction that requires him to actually compromise with other editors at an article talk page. His support vote above probably was the first indication of him retiring. Although I admire his content creation, he tends to be uncooperative with anyone who disagrees with him. I think this proposal is very lenient and addresseses his tendency to WP:OWN articles without getting rid of an excellent writer.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Daniel C. Boyer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Daniel C. Boyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I believe it's well past time for a sanction on this editor, a non-notable artist who, in blatant violations of WP:PROMOTION, inserted his name into a variety of articles, all instances of which were removed by numerous editors, and who then proceeded to attempt to reinsert his name using IPs. From 2007-2011, he also used the socketpuppet account User:Samuel O'Malley (blocked on 6 May 2011), and also apparently occasionally used the sockpuppet account User:Nothing Nobo (discarded about a month after Samuel O'Malley was blocked). The single-edit account User:Brian Mackelove may be connected as well.

This editor has been problematic for a while:

• In 2003, a discussion was opened about him on "Problem users". [21]

• An article about him, Daniel C. Boyer, was deleted in 2004 or 2005 [22]
  • The AfD seems to say 2004, but at the article link it says 2005; there appears to have been an earlier discussion in 2003, but it's unclear from the AfD page what the result of that was.

• There's an RfC/U on him from 2005 [23].

• Boyer was blocked in 2007 for this same behavior. [24],

• He was reported for it again in 2011. [25]

• I reported his user page at MfD earlier this year for its similarity to an article, but the result was "Keep". [26]
  • However, one editor in that discussion exclaimed: "This has been going on for 13 years?" (emphasis added)

Articles Boyer inserted himself into include:

• Body fluids in art – initial insertion (28 May 2016): [27]; re-insertion: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (last: 4 June 2017)

• Surrealist techniques – initial insertion (20 September 2007): [33]; re-insertion: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43] (last: 3 July 2017, article semi-protected)

• Soho Square (Manhattan) – initial insertion (18 September 2016): [44]; re-insertions: [45]; [46] (last: 2 January 2017)

• Perspiration – initial insertion (22 May 2016): [47]; re-insertion: [48]; [49]; [50]; [51]; [52]; [53]; [54] (last: 11 July 2017)

• Mat (picture framing) – initial insertion (29 November 2009): [55]; second insertion (new material; 1 December 2009): [56]; third insertion (new material, 19 October 2010): [57]; fourth insertion (new material, 31 October 2010): [58]; fifth insertion (new material, 12 October 2011): [59]; sixth insertion (new material, 24 October 2011): [60]; re-insertions: [61]; [62]; [63] (last: 18 June 2016)

• Counter pen – initial insertion (17 June 2011): [64]; re-insertion: [65] (last: 22 March 2017)

• List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni – insertion (23 May 2007): [66]; re-insertions: [67]; [68]; [69]; [70]; [71]; [72]; [73]; [74]; [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79] (last: 7 January 2017)

The IPs Boyer has used include:

The list of IPs

24.247.43.72 64.94.31.206 72.52.198.58 74.66.21.209 107.77.70.114 107.77.76.60 107.77.106.32 141.219.44.104 141.219.46.59 141.219.46.62 141.219.46.65 141.219.46.68 141.219.46.74 141.219.46.79 141.219.253.152 166.216.128.11 166.216.128.13 166.216.128.15 166.216.128.16 172.56.10.50 172.56.27.245 172.56.28.171 172.56.35.210 172.56.36.122 172.56.37.28 172.56.37.237 172.58.169.115 172.58.169.196 172.58.171.64 172.58.185.35 172.58.217.103 172.58.224.105 172.58.232.23 172.58.232.72 172.58.233.31 172.58.233.81 172.58.233.193 172.58.233.248 208.54.37.211 208.54.87.171 208.54.90.173 208.68.27.63

User:Daniel C. Boyer appears to be a productive editor when self-promotion is not concerned, so I don't believe a long or indef block is warranted. I would suggest a topic ban on editing anything to do with himself, his life, his work or his activities, as well as a restriction to edit only while signed-in to his account, and not with IPs (which he does regularly, above and beyond his use of them to re-insert his name into articles). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified. [80]. I have not notified any of his IP socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

What a persistent wikilawyer! But not a very good one, I'm afraid. No wonder he didn't finish Harvard. EEng 03:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's sadder than I thought: "Attended Harvard Summer School 1997, 1998, 2001". EEng 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Although he hasn't responded here. on his talk page, Daniel C. Boyer accuses me of having a "vendetta" against him that has reached "bizarre proportions", and questions how "practically every IP that has ever existed" could all be his sockpuppets. [81] However, all one has to do is look at the contributions of the IPs listed and compare them to Daniel C. Boyer's own contributions to see the overlap between them.

I don't make the claim that Boyer has exclusive use of these IPs, rather I would speculate that his Internet service doesn't assign static IPs, but a new one he time uses it, so that all he has to do is not sign in to Wikipedia, and he's on any of a variety of IPs, which, in the times between, could have been used by other people. However, it's quite clear that the pattern of editing indicates that the IPs which are reinserting Boeyr's name into articles are not random people, but he, himself, avoiding scrutiny of his edits by not signing in. Many of the editors who reverted those edits have done so numerous times and will recognize the pattern. I could ping all those editors, but I don't want to WP:CANVASS, I'd prefer that neutral editors look over the evidence to see if I've presented a compelling case against Boyer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• If there was ever an editor we don't need, it's Boyer. Check this out [82]. EEng 04:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Long term problematic editing in a specific topic - check.

Multiple previous sanctions for the same behavior - check.

Absolutely no indication this is going to change without intervention - Bingbingbingbing. Support topic ban from anything remotely related to themselves, either directly or indirectly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all autobiographical content, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per OID and Cullen. I would also support a deletion of the self-promotional user page if it were taken back to MfD. I think it violates WP:UPNO, and the previous discussion had only two participants, including the nominator. --bonadea contributions talk 08:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Only two 24 hour blocks in 13 years -- with this kind of socking? This topic ban is extremely lenient, all things considered, and I hope it is as broadly construed as possible to stop this behavior. I also support if his userpage is taken back to MfD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Difficult to meaningfully block the IPs, since they're often dynamically allocated. 95.248.201.196 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• support and thanks to the OP for this extensive and thorough legwork. Agreed that this TBAN is very lenient. Shame on you, Daniel. We all have better ways to spend our volunteer time than dealing with your abuse of Wikipedia to promote yourself. Really. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support only because no one seems to want to just ban him outright, which is where this is going anyway, sooner or later. But the moment he steps out of line again, that should be the E-N-D. It's ridiculous. Oh, and before I forget, Mr. Boyer: Harvard Summer School students are not matriculated degree candidates, and are not alumni [83]. EEng 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Wow. Surprised to learn that the above is a list of "practically every IP that has ever existed". The web is quite a lot smaller than I imagined. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Indef, please Never mind the topic ban, he's been abusing multiple accounts and editing logged out to try and evade this in a clear and blatant violation of WP:SOCK. His last 100 mainspace contributions go back to 2011, and on Talk:Thompson Street (Manhattan) I see a failure to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass so his positive contributions to the project are marginal and don't outweigh the disruption, in my opinion. He needs to be kicked out now, and then an LTA page created when (not if) he evades the block by IP socking. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBan at minimum:--Indef will be good too.Editor whose sole aim is to promote himself.And I believe he needs to be kicked out right now because unlike others who only look to self-promote and quickly fall in the nets, he has managed to keep these nonsense activities going for the last decade in the guise of being a good contributor otherwise.Boyer,Obliviate! Your affection for the project is deadly.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Tban I cannot remember having run into this editor or his attempts at self promotion. If the editing-while-logged-out continues, I won't oppose any block. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Tban Repeated violations of WP:PROMOTION should not be tolerated. This user has had multiple chances and has broken the trust of the community.Knox490 (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support outright indef The blatant use of socks for self-promotion violates many of Wikipedia's key guidelines, and one of the pillars that being article written from a neutral point of view. A topic ban doesn't resolve this issue. Wikipedia's not to be used for promotion, period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• RickinBaltimore If there's not sufficient consensus for an indef, would you support the suggested TBan, rather than have the editor go unsanctioned? On my part, if the community thinks that Boyer is a net negative, then an indef would be the logical choice, which I would support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

If the community chooses that option, of course I will. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 - Same question: would you support a TBan if there's not enough support for an indef? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would, though it's lenient in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just ban him, or block him, or whatever

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm proposing this explicitly because 4 of 11 editors commenting above spontaneously volunteered the idea. Anyone who wants should feel free to refine this proposal to an indefinite block, or site ban, or whatever, since I can never remember the difference – just so long as he's not bothering people anymore and inserting his name into articles and burning up the servers with his endless wikilawyering.

Pinging everyone who's commented so far: Cullen328,Bonadea,TheGracefulSlick,Jytdog,Martinevans123,Ritchie333,Winged Blades of Godric,L3X1,Knox490,RickinBaltimore,Beyond My Ken.

• Support as proposer – The socking, the self-promotion, and now he's acting crazy on my talk page. [84] He's made 60 article-space edits in 2017, and a substantial proportion are some form of self-promotion or nonsense. His useful edits aren't worth all these years of hassle. Good riddance. EEng 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not acting crazy on your talk page. You are bringing up a bunch completely irrelevant stuff about when the dates that certain things happened in my career, which I don't know what they have to do with anything and basing a lot of what you wrote on things you just invented. The stuff about Harvard Summer School is a bunch of hogwash. I attended Harvard Summer School for three years; so what? Can you give me the slightest information about what this has to do with anything given that it seems to be only in your head that anyone has ever said it means anything more than just this? And I have never included nonsense in any article; please provide any information to the contrary. I have only complained about the nonsense included in articles by others, including a lot by Beyond My Ken. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment here and that is what you say? I think you just put the final nail in the coffin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with attending Harvard Summer School. Inserting yourself into List of Harvard alumni based on that is, well... <sigh>. EEng 22:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I was mistakenly expecting the faintest touch of remorse, not counter-accusations of sockpuppetry. Irony overload. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - said it all above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• yep Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support if there is consensus to do so - My comment in the main thread about Boyer appearing to be a productive editor when self-promotion was not involved had to do with his contributions in the subject of Heraldry, which I am, frankly, not qualified to judge, but they seemed OK to me. If the community sees him as a long-term net negative, then a community site ban (which would be accomplished by way of an indef block) would make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I was totally shocked that an indef block was not on the table after the list of IPs and accounts connected to him were offered as evidence. I'll say it again: 13 years!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as I said above. If the community chose to go the route of a t-ban, while I think that was way lenient,I would of course respect it. However, it's lenient. 13 YEARS of socking and self promotion? That's enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. @Beyond My Ken The heraldry edits do seem ok but not one of them appear to be sourced. Jschnur (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of them have been extensively sourced. Do some research. Many of my sources in my extensive edits on heraldry were removed when extensive changes were made to the Charges article, for example, removing many of my contributions. I'm not complaining about that, but what you write isn't completely accurate. Is anyone going to even remotely discuss anything I'm bringing up or just congratulate themselves on their cleverness or sarcasm? --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support (non admin vote)–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• No - Unless someone can point out disruption that isn't covered by the TBAN, then this is the more restrictive of two options that covers the same issue. TimothyJosephWood 22:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Long term and repeated socking for COI reasons needs to be treated very seriously. And the retaliatory filing below is, for me, the last straw. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - on account of #Personal Attacks by EEng below. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above - He's not here to contribute - He's here only to promote and seems he'll do anything to plaster his name everywhere, The retaliatory thread below is more than enough for a block!, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attacks by EEng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:EEng has engaged in repeated personal attacks against me having nothing to do with anything. He has suggested that there is something suspicious, sad or pathetic about the mere fact that I attended Harvard Summer School and ridiculed me in a way irrelevant to anything at any opportunity before asking irrelevant questions about my career. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So you think your record at Wikipedia has been so exemplary that ridicule is out of the question? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I am clearly not arguing any such thing. What I am arguing is that it is only my exits that should be ridiculed, or things related to them. My attendance at Harvard Summer School isn't really a relevant basis for ridicule. Calling me a poseur, based on nothing, isn't really a legitimate thing in Wikipedia. Calling my opinions on heraldry or history or surrealism, gleaned from my exits on those subjects, or even saying that they show that I am an idiot, would be fair enough. --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Trust me, no one would ridicule or criticize your exit in any way. In fact, it's being arranged for you even now. EEng 23:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Daniel C. Boyer: You have not provided any diffs to support your allegations. Without any diffs, you are essentially making a personal attack on them. However, from skimming the section above regarding you, this seems to be in retaliation over EEng's proposal. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No, just no. We are deep into boomerang territory here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• For those who are wondering, I'll supply the diff Daniel C. Boyer omitted: I labeled him a poseur (see edit summary at [85]) for inserting himself into List of Harvard alumni based on his attendance at Harvard Summer School (though even for that we'd have to take his word for it). Describing himself as a "Japanese poltician" added to the impression of a surrealist performance piece. EEng 23:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, this is clearly A Most Serious Matter. The only possible solution is an indef block, per WP:BOOMERANG. Partly for not noting the previous ANI thread above when you posted this, more importantly because there's already a large call foor one above, and finally - just because of the lobsters. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• I would suggest this gets closed and the OP blocked indef, Retaliatory threads get no where and neither does mass-promoting yourself and socking. –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman) semi protection needed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

many different IPs are vandalizing Steve Dunn (1990s first baseman), I suspect socking. Tornado chaser (talk)

• @Tornado chaser: next time go to WP:RFPP. It is the appropriate forum for this situation and admins will help you sooner.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done one week. And yes, WP:RFPP is the preferred venue, but I won't be a slave to bureaucracy so I just did it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, user Neptune's Trident continues to delete what's confirmed by a reliable source (insteat of go talk page and discuss it as I have offered). No reliable sources from mr. Neptune's Trident, and there is edit war going on.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you are proposing to change an article and another user has objected to the changes, it's your responsibility to discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page and gain consensus for the changes. It takes two to edit-war, so I suggest that you open a thread on the talk page and wait for a discussion to begin. Unless the information relates to unsourced or poorly-sourced claims about a living person, there's no urgent need to force the change to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I started a thread on talk page before I came to administrators' noticeboard, but the response was clearly negative.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• This unregistered user keeps insisting that this film is a horror film and this is the supposed reliable source:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2012/07/film_club_-_twin_peaks_fire_wa.html

A blog on the BBC website. Yet nowhere in the link is this film listed of classified as a horror film, simply point that out area out where it says it is classified as horror on that blog listing of the BBC website. Neptune's Trident (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. is what this link says. IMDb says the same, for example.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Much of IMDb is user-generated content, which makes it even less suitable for Wikipedia than a BBC opinion column. Regardless, the place to have this discussion is the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

At least I have BBC on my side. Neptune's Trident has nothing but his own words. And I don't want to discuss it anymore, it's obvious that if one deletes a sourced opinion he must provide his own sources. I haven't seen any sources. So the violation is not on my side anyway.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't actually have BBC on your side. The source uses doesn't mention or label that the movie is a horror movie. Go to the talk page and get a consensus or drop the stick and move on.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The source provided says "The second Kermode Uncut Film Club choice is David Lynch's magnificent 1992 horror movie. Watch this introduction and let me know what you think of the film." Mark Kermode is the BBC's top film critic, and arguably one of, if not the, top film critics in the UK. If he labels something a horror film and the BBC is happy to print it as such, that would generally suffice as a reliable source that its a horror film, absent anything contradictory. (Being Lynch of course, sources from the time of release didn't really know what to make of it, subsequent analysis/reviews generally come down to noir thriller/horror, leaning one way or other depending on who is doing the reviewing.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this not a content dispute? If there's an edit warring problem it should reported to the appropriate board. Everything else here is just genre war BS. I suggest this be closed and routed to appropriate venues. Valeince (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user Dadarson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dadarson (talk · contribs) is in a bad mood. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment:--Well, it's time for some music to refresh his mind.He's really in a bad mood.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just watched Fist Fight and am a big fan of Charlie Day. So long b**ches. For uncensored, unfiltered truth talk to me directly. (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Went from a new user to considering us the worst organization in the history of the world in 7 hours. Is that a new record? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

oh and Dadarson: We don't delete accounts. you're welcome to stop using it, though. --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, I helped him escape the evil empire. --Golbez (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass distribution of user block templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone have a look at edits by 83.24.95.61 (talk · contribs)? Always looks suspicious when a new account goes on a binge like this. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for blocking them, Bbb23. Looks like a Polish user targeting IPs from the US Congress. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional Editing on Juliet Simms

Sure Templeton is more or less a single purpose account devoted to editing Juliet Simms, a BLP (the only other edit not having to do with Juliet Simms somehow is on Aspen trees). This user is continually removing sourced content from Simms' article and replacing it with promotional prose, unsourced content, and provoking other editors while insinuating that editors are attempting to degrade or attack Juliet Simms directly.

Some edits this user has made include:

"Simms was asked on to the nationally viewed singing competition The Voice on NBC where her blind audition was aired immediately following the Super Bowl. She broke 2 download records -one for her first live show performance for her recordings of "Roxanne" and the second for the second to last live show performance of "It's a Man's World" which landed her on the front cover of USA Today the next morning. She finished as the runner up of that show, which created much controversy and media disappointment and an eventual change in the following year's accounting system to include downloads in the voting totals"

"Automatic Loveletter was the brain child of Juliet Simms having wrote or co-wrote every song that the band ever recorded...with Simms' solo career and marriage to rocker Andy Black there has been no new Automatic Loveletter music since 2011"

And "While recording she began promoting her songs through Myspace and with her band, Automatic Loveletter, quickly became the top Emo band on that platform, attracting attention from several major record labels. After showcasing for music industry icons from L.A. Reid and Jimmy Iovine to Wyclef Jean and Don Ienner she finally signed with Epic Records in 2005 where she and her band recorded a full length album with Matt Squire"

In her edit reasons, this user frequently disparages other editors, stating comments such as, "the earlier editor seems to have a problem with the religion Scientology per her edit summary statement after mentioning this she came back w/ much more on it. Also using tabloid gossip to degrade Juliet. Removed positive content." "Again the last edited removed truthful statistics and positive content with reference to her download records from the show, changes in accounting for the show - shows intent to belittle her rather than allowing the facts." "again reverting to unvandalized version to include interesting and true facts and add that Juliet was the creator of A.LL instead of saying she was the "acting front woman" written as the earlier edit by Juliet haters suggested" "Users Keepingitcool & thejulietflame are Juliet "haters" vandalizing this article by repeatedly removing interesting true content & replacing w/ tabloid sensationalism. This section calls for more info not less." "The user Keepingitcool keeps placing Scientology into this article. Because she also earlier removed other positive content I suspect an intent to belittle or besmirch Juliet. She also called the religion a cult. I suspect sensationalism" "There were several historical errors concerning record labels and who she was signed with as well an clear intent to diminish her accomplishments which I suspect was written by on of her husbands female fans who wish Juliet ill."

All of the edits in question this user had been discussing in their edit reasons were well-sourced, factual, and were not written in a way to be derogatory (for example, the BLP in question involves someone who was raised in the Church of Scientology). They do not seem to realize that the removal of their "interesting and true facts" has everything to do with the fact that they are removing sourced information that is in line with Wikipedia guidelines to replace it with lengthy, unsourced promotional prose. I reverted the edit to the more well-sourced and nonpartisan edits that had existed prior. Were these edits made by this user more nonpartisan, succinct, well-sourced and non-promotional, they would do perfectly in the article -- however, I do not believe Sure Templeton is here for encyclopedic purposes. I believe they are here to promote Juliet Simms, as their edits read less like fact and more like a fanpage. I propose that Sure Templeton be banned from the Juliet Simms article, if not the subject of Juliet Simms completely. Syd Highwind (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• I left a fairly blunt message on her talk page. I think that should serve as a strong warning and should suffice for now. Let's see where it goes from here. They aren't going to like what I had to say, but I felt that I shouldn't mince words and just lay it out there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• • I saw that, and I definitely agree that she may be associated with Juliet Simms -- the thought that she herself might be Juliet also crossed my mind very briefly. I've also read the talk page history due to the fact that it's a very problematic article and I suggested revisiting its AfD nomination on those grounds. But in the talk page she left some belligerent commentary, leveraging personal attacks toward people such as adult film actress Mary Carey, in regards to an incident that had occurred between Simms and her husband last year that Carey had witnessed. She alleged Carey was a washed up drunk attempting to cash in on Simms's fame, white knighting for Simms, and attempting to provoke people on the talk page. I think what you wrote is a good warning, but with her track record and attitude she's probably just going to retaliate somehow. If she does, I vote to ban her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syd Highwind (talk • contribs) 02:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Syd Highwind (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC) (I forgot to sign this, lol. Oh the joys of editing on mobile.)
    • We can cross that bridge if we come to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Action at WASPI

Requesting that someone take a look at the WASPI article. Currently User:Spwalshe (talk) has created the article multiple times in the face of speedy deletions and rejected drafts. Now a new editor called User:WASPI Campaign (talk) has entered the fray. I do not really know what the article in question is about, but I believe it has political overtures. Requesting that appropriate action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Username softblocked as it reads as a shared account. Page was deleted again as G11. Amortias (T)(C) 20:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Salted -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The article was one I wanted to look at and see I could write a proper version on it before I deleted, but I never got round to it. It's now at Women Against State Pension Inequality so all is well. I don't think salting is a good idea as it seems to be a valid redirect. I've created WASPI as that; obviously this is technically abuse of admin rights to edit through a protected title, so feel free to shout or serve seafood if there is a problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, though I've got to say that User talk:Spwalshe is a walking advert for WP:WIHSD :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User making threats at WP:SPI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Probably needs a speedy block, at the very least, per this edit and multiple reverts. Note the threat in the edit summary. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Indeffed by admin User:Widr - this is a multiple sock user, suggest the sock master be banned, and the threat possibly reported appropriately. Jusdafax 08:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, obvious sock puppet. This looks to be resolved. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User talk:2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:93 Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I received the above, telling me that my edit had been undone. I DID NOT MAKE SUCH AN EDIT: I have no interest in Skechers tennis shoes or whatever they are, and did not even access that page. SOMEONE APPEARS TO BE USING MY IP ADDRESS to for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:93 (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You're probably on an IP that was used by someone previously. This warning you're talking about was from June 25. To avoid this confusion, consider creating an account. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unjustified threats by NeilN and DrFleischman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two months ago, I was trying to change a violation of two rules on the Richard B. Spencer article calling him a white supremacist. One was a violation of WP:YESPOV and the other was WP:LIBEL. I pressed on the WP:YESPOV rule until no one could defend it. While I was doing that, I also made a separate subsection accusing the opening sentence of being libelous (while explicitly preventing any misinterpretations of my accusation as a legal threat) and pointing out that it was Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material as soon as it had been identified. I said TWO THINGS about it and suddenly NeilN offered no defense for the claim and just threatened to topic ban me. Out of anger and frustrations, I abandoned the talk page. A few days ago, I came back and noticed that many other editors were complaining about the wording as well, so I suggested to DrFleischman that another RfC be held since the last one had been four months ago and consensus can change. His response was to throw a temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction me for doing nothing wrong. My only alleged "crime" was suggesting that an article's wording violated a rule that the above editors never considered. Very different from disruptive editing. I need assurance that these editors won't ban me for addressing a previously ignored issue that has a good chance of changing the defamatory lead section. THE DIAZ ^{talk • contribs} 18:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Dr. F and I rarely agree on anything. There's no love lost between us. I say that only so that you get the weight of what I'm saying when I say that he's right. Consensus can change, but the policy here is pretty clear. Time to move on. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Diffs, please? I looked through the talk page quickly and I can't find you even editing it. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The comments are at Talk:Richard B. Spencer#White Supremacist. However, there still needs to be links to whatever page it was that Dr. Fleischman threw a "temper tantrum and threaten to tell admins to sanction" you. Unless you are referring to an old discussion from 9 May? Even then he doesn't throw a tantrum or threaten you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No tantrums here, and I wouldn't ban you because I'm not an admin, so I can't. However I can report you. Indeed, your editing conduct at Talk:Richard B. Spencer has been textbook WP:IDHT disruption. Your contention that you only said "TWO THINGS" about libel before NeilN threatened you with sanctions is verifiably false. You repeated the "libel" mantra four times before then ([86], [87], [88], [89]). And that doesn't include your endless IDHT beyond the "libel" stuff. You keep bringing up the same recycled arguments over and over again, and each time they are soundly rejected by the consensus. Like I said, pressing for a new RfC on the same content dispute every time the consensus rejects a new variation on an old, already rejected argument is disruptive. Chanting "consensus can change" over and over again doesn't help your cause. When will you drop the stick and move on? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm in the same boat as Niteshift36. I've had more than my share of disagreements with DrFleischman. Yet, I too am compelled to side with DrF on this. The Diaz hasn't seemed to take WP:CONLEVEL into consideration. While there are some on the talk page that agree with TD, I do not see much in the way of cited sources offered to that effect, let alone, enough to warrant an RfC or counter the mountain of existing RS that call Spencer a white supremacist. Sorry if that is beside the point, but it needed to be said. In May, TD was warned by an admin, and told to take it up with WP-Legal if they wanted to continue that discussion [90], yet they have decided that it was wise to WP:REHASH it [91] yesterday, THEN, ask for assurances that they won't be Tbanned for it the next day (today). Seems completely backwards in my view. Lastly, DrF does not seem to be throwing a temper tantrum here, or on the RS talk page, so I'm at a loss as to how that conclusion, among others, was reached. DN (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

This is coming up in a lot of articles these days, but after a point, I would just say that Richard Spencer is a big boy and there are mechanisms for him to contact WMF and legal directly if he wants to contest the material, at which point it would be more appropriate then prolonging a content dispute. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Diaz: Keep on using libel as a reason to remove the label and you can be assured I will topic ban you. As I said previously, and what DN reiterated above, contact WMF Legal if you think there's a problem. They'll act accordingly as libel is a legal issue. Pretty simple, really. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abuse of administrator privileges by Widr

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user not only deleted my fresh account without providing any reason as to why, but deleted all created pages which included some articles ready for creation, this user then blocked the IP from editing (despite neither the IP or account having made any vandalising edits), then @Widr: didn't even give the reason for the blocking of both editing and account creation (the latter being permanent as far as I know), this user admitted on his talk page that he wishes to block people from ever creating accounts on Wikimedia ever again and had a whole echo talk with another user with similar views, these WP:BADFAITH edits scare people away from Wikipedia that simply want to improve articles. I assume that I want banned for my name or something as all I did was explain that as a mobile user I dislike it when I get reverted for making edits in 2 turns that desktop users can do in one edit, apparently complaining about Wikipedia's technical limitations gets you attacked by the current bourgeoisie of this site. I request that that user puts the correct template on the talk pages, compare this to other users with similar editing privileges who usually request a name change, the same for corporate accounts this user just IMMEDIATELY bans any "ad" account, others at least allow them to change their names, Widr shows no tolerance or WP:GOODFAITH in any case and hasn't earned his privileges. --113.23.55.110 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fivestarfoam was as blatant advertising+COI as it can get. If this is the worst Widr is doing, I think we should give him a barnstar with an Oak Leaf for it. And one for me too because I do the same self thing - I have zero tolerance for such deliberate abuse of Wikipedia. AGF doesn't come into it. Are you admitting to block evasion, 113.23.55.110 perchance?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although Widr's blocks seem to be okay about 99% of the time, I've not been happy with the other 1%, including blocking all of my local public library for a couple of years until I got it overturned at ANI. Unless there's some application of WP:BEANS, I don't know why Person guy is blocked - the account has no contributions, deleted or otherwise. If it's a checkuser block, it should be annotated as such. I'll AGF there's an explanation for all this, but I can't see it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That one is ultimately no mystery: Special:Log/Thatinternettroll. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor creating articles with no content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Hatamtayy (talk) has recently (in the past few minutes) created a number of articles containing only links to off wiki documents. Most of these have been deleted via speedy-delete no-content tags, but at the time of my writing this he may be continuing. Requesting action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Now blocked, closing. Hayman30 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hayman30: @SamHolt6: Unclosing. Not so fast. RickinBaltimore has blocked indefinitely. I would argue that this is overly harsh. Hatamtayy was building a draft article at Draft:Ardalan Sameti, and was creating these "no content" article as a means to link to Sameti's publications. Clearly this was the wrong way to do this, and I had posted a note on Hatamtayy's talk page referring them to Help:Citing sources. I suspect this new user just didn't understand the process. A temporary block to bring their attention to the problem would be appropriate, but not an indefinite block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Reping @Hayman30: @SamHolt6:. FYI, pings only go through if there is a a new comment with a new signature. They don't work when you edit a previous comment. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll switch the block to 31 hours. The issue to be was the user clearly ignored a warning to stop on their talk page and kept creating articles RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you have a good point that rather than an indef, it might be better to give a short-term block and see if the user is able to follow Wikipedia guidelines.

Is it possible that the draft article is autobiographical? The image on Hatamtayy is the same image in Draft:Ardalan Sameti.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Block switched, and user has posted an unblock request. I of course would be willing to roll back the block, should they understand why they were blocked and what caused the issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks like the draft was deleted G11 by User:Maile66 at basically the exact moment I AfC declined, meaning I effectively recreated it. Not totally sure that it's G11, given that it's basically just a bibliography, but... feel free do discuss among yourselves. TimothyJosephWood 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY was probably intended for this, U5 all the way. — fortunavelut luna 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article is autobiographical. The user started the draft on their user page before moving it to a draft article. I think the image is just a remnant of not having completely emptied their user page after starting the draft. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Odd thing, is that it isn't really deleted. My log says I deleted it, but User:Hatamtayy/sandbox still exists. Maybe we cancelled each other out. Whatever, I'm fine with it not being deleted, since this has now being questioned as a bit hasty. — Maile (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If someone is editing the page when it is moved or deleted, it occasionally tells you it's gone in an edit-conflict-style notice. But more often then not it treats it as a page creation. It's happened to me twice this morning alone. TimothyJosephWood 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can be done with this thread for now. The user is temp blocked, and is no doubt on several watchlists at this point, so any further misdeeds can be managed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed indefinite block for Ccxtv94

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Wikipedians I'm imposing an indefinite block for Ccxtv94 (talk · contribs) for continued inserting spamlinks and edit warring persistently I have a question for Admins to make an possible indefinite block for spamming on Putlocker can you make an indefinite block for now --66.87.68.167 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think either go to WP:AIV if it is vandalism, or wait for a reply here if it isn't. —JJB^ers 20:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indef for spam. Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spamming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ariel password (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently adding spam links to various articles. I think they are also copyvios but I could be wrong. Since the edits aren't vandalism I brought them here to get as quick a response as possible. MarnetteD|Talk 05:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. You can report this to AIV. There are some Indonesian IP editors and a few logged in accounts who are spamming these links. If this is coming from the same Indonesian ISP, there's probably too much collateral damage for a range block. Edit filters and spam blacklists are probably the best solution if this keeps up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, 'active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers' :) — fortunavelut luna 07:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi good too know for future reference. I found this late last night (my time) and didn't think I could use AIV. My other question is, since all of the links are for films still in the theaters, are the links copyvios that should be r/d'd. MarnetteD|Talk 15:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Loganfisc - questionable edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Loganfisc (talk · contribs) has been creating articles about nonexistent animated TV series and today has been adding invalid TV network categories to articles about TV series. They has been warned numerous times today alone and they have neither responded nor changed their behavior. Trivialist (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. I have some doubts as to whether this person is here to contribute constructively, but I started with a short block. Let me know if it continues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock? There was a now blocked user who used to do this. Can't remember the name.--Auric talk 15:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Incivility and abuse by Cassianto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cassianto (talk · contribs) continues to abuse other editors in edit summaries and Talk page comments. Examples are "You really are a moron, aren't you"; "Do not edit war you idiot"; almost the entirety of their contributions to Talk:Harry Lauder#RfC on infobox, including "Go away, and try to be an adult when taking part in adult conversations", "Look at your answer and compare it to my question, you fool ...", "Please try and engage your brain when responding to comments", "Kindly stick your patronising comments where the sun doesn't shine", "I can only assume you are doing what you do best: trolling", "Personally, I couldn't give a fuck toss about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer from you so others didn't think you were foolish. When you have as many FAs as I do, young boy ...". This is not new behavior from this editor, nor the first time it has been brought to their attention, the most recent attempt at discussion being just yesterday. General Ization ^Talk 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Then don't edit war. It's a little hard to weed through, but it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant to sign it. *Sigh* —JJB^ers 19:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Pardon? This is not about me (and I didn't edit Ariana Grande), but about the behavior of the named editor, even if when reverting other bad behavior. General Ization ^Talk 18:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

First, a warning, at 17:49 (despite WP:DTTR, by the way), and then this, literally three minutes later. What's the matter, did you have a change of heart? Forgot yourself in the frenzy of utter excitement to think that you were creating yet another warning to someone rather than doing some good somewhere (yes, I've checked your contributions, like you have me). Re the four day-old thread at Harry Lauder, did you see my adjustments to the "offending" text? I think someone may enjoy the drama a bit too much. Cassianto^Talk 18:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Although I could probably rest my case based in part on your reply here: WP:DTTR is a suggestion; in your case, your failure to follow the minimum standards expected of editors means that you should be afforded the minimum deference to your longevity here. And yes, I saw your "adjustments", and even took care to reflect them using strike-out above; the point being not the words as they exist on the page now, but as you originally typed them, and your attitude generally toward other editors. General Ization ^Talk 18:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And as previously noted, I was well aware you have been counseled about this behavior (and blocked for it) in the past, and that it was discussed with you only yesterday, so when you simply removed the warning I left for you with a ridiculous comment I saw no reason to delay a report here. General Ization ^Talk 18:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, bless. Tell me, how would you have liked me to have responded to your patronising templating? Award you a kitten? Give you a foot massage? Buy you an all expenses paid trip to Canvey Island? Let's get one thing straight; I don't conceal my contempt for "other editors", as you generously call them, who follow me about in order to poke me into fights and cause havoc where havoc needent be caused. Secondly, and perhaps more worryingly, because I reverted your patronising tag with a jocular comment, rather than my usual expletive, which I've somewhat become known for, you decide to pull on your running shoes and hot foot it to ANI? Are you sure you don't enjoy the drama? C'mon, we're all friends here, don't be shy... ;) Cassianto^Talk 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure I don't need to cite WP:BATTLEGROUND for anyone else's benefit. General Ization ^Talk 18:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I know of very few experienced editors with such a consistent battleground mind-set. Unable to set aside the snark/sarcasm/combativeness even when defending themselves against an ANI complaint. Wikipedia should not bear the brunt of serious anger issues. Somebody make a proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose to go and do something else while I let the peanut gallery argue amongst themselves. Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a community. It's not a utopia, but users are expected to meet certain standards of decorum and civility toward each other. The comment just above and aforementioned edit summaries suggest that Cassianto is either unable or unwilling to meet those standards. It's quickly nearing the point where, for the betterment of the community, Cassianto may need to be excluded from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Cassianto has a long history of rudeness. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 18:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't we do one of those civility restrictions, where if you break it, you get blocked for a tiny bit? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on their block log, it would be more than a tiny bit. They were blocked in January for one month for personal attacks or harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Then 5 months or so? And then make the civility restriction appealable in more than the standard time—maybe a year? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree upon 5 months, mostly due to their...not so great block log. —JJB^ers 19:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Cassianto, seriously, you of all people should know better than to engage in juvenile name-calling in edit summaries. It doesn't matter if the person you are engaged with is actually an idiot or is stupid, you just can't go around dropping that shit in edit summaries. You're better than that. You need to be bigger than that. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Somehow, after all this, I think the clarity of civility policy should be raised at WT:Civility, where we can also ask whether this policy is an improvement or a detriment to the quality of the encyclopedia. --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've felt for some time that the community needs to come to grips with inconsistent, arbitrary enforcement of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, and the widespread feeling that there is, or even should be, a de facto exemption for "vested contributors." Yes, I realize that there is no such thing, and that all editors should expect equal treatment. But some of us would argue that vested contributors are a reality. We have not one but two overlapping civility policies because there was a feeling at one time that incivility is corrosive, and that double standards drive away contributors, adversely affect content, and undermine the project in a number of ways. Over time there seems to be a retreat from that position. We need to acknowledge that civility polices are not enforced against the "peons" (as one person said below) as it is against longtime content contributors and administrators. If this is indeed a good thing, let's acknowledge it and perhaps alter the civility policy. If it is a bad thing, let's work on that too. Anyway, this whole discussion is now moot and it should be hatted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree that the last ten years have seen a slow but steady drift away from WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and that this slide drives away potential contributors. Jusdafax 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose three month block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The obvious place to go here would seem to be the three month block that didn't stick last time, and which followed basically a month after a month long block for incivility. This has become a monthly or bi-weekly tradition. Cass doesn't need it explained to them in crushing detail what it means to just not be mean to people, or to be reminded that they are expected to be civil, which is what a civility restriction boils down to. And we don't need a user around where you can mark your calendar according to the next expected ANI. If we're here again in a few months, escalate from there, and if that doesn't solve the problem then it's probably time to consider an indef so we can stop doing exactly this. This doesn't really need an extended discussion. If anyone is unfamiliar, interested and has a few hours to kill, you're welcome to dig through literally years of ANI threads about the same user and the same issue. That's quite enough I think. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Just get it over with before this inevitably turns into a 50 page thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support 5 months As stated, the three month block didn't work, so 5 months. Mostly stated above this section. —JJB^ers 19:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers, the three month block was imposed but was removed the same day after another god awful ANI thread. TimothyJosephWood 19:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that, I'll change it to supporting a three month block. —JJB^ers 19:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It's the fecking internet, a bit of rough language does not merit a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support as the one who brought the question here (only this time, and only one of many). General Ization ^Talk 19:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Although I'm reluctant because of the content creation, this seems to be the best thing. The content creation hasn't been going on for a while either, so it wouldn't be too bad for the encyclopedia. In addition, IIRC, they helped scare away Coffee, and probably more users. Thus, it would be beneficial for this user to be blocked. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, Please feel free to look in on this and this, just two re-writes I'm conducting on two very important people. Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I am gong to call complete fucking bollocks on the claim that "they helped scare away Coffee". That sort of downright lie has no place in discussions like this. Coffee had problems that's were nothing to do with Cassianto. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the strike. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Darkness Shines. Becoming short tempered with edit warriors who do not heed warnings may not appease the peanut gallery, but it happens to those who spend their time building an encyclopaedia. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• As that's the second reference to "peanut gallery", the first being from Cassianto, I'm curious. What exactly is the definition of this "peanut gallery"? Is it something like "ignorant masses"? That would be a very hard case to make given the collective experience among supporters of this proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Peanut gallery was the 1950s era audience of children who attended the television taping of each Howdy Doody Show. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

A case of .... If wiki gives you peanuts, make a gallery?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hat discussion distracting from the matter at hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Ization (talk • contribs) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You know, it's funny you should mention that correlation (use of the fairly obscure term "peanut gallery"). Is this interesting to anyone else? General Ization Talk 19:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Cassianto and I have worked together to raise the standard of many articles. What's your point. It certainly isn't "interesting" to anyone intent on building content, rather than infesting the drama the boards. (And no, despite your desperate claim, there is nothing obscure about the term peanut gallery) – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Mandruss, who the hell do you think you are? You come here shouting for a punitive block whilst at the same time, accusing SchroCat and I of being one and the same. Open up an SPI if you think you're brace enough. CassiantoTalk 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I think your unfounded accusation is directed at the wrong editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC) And there another: a penchant for ignoring WP:AGF and suggesting that other, disagreeing editors are only interested in drama. Not really suggesting anything, just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar. But I'm sure it's from your long association improving the encyclopedia. General Ization Talk 20:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC) It's a good thing I have my AGF hat on, because otherwise it would be easy to take "just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar" as suggestive of a socking accusation. There are enough senior editors, including a number of admins, who have met both me and Cassianto. I suggest you curtail that line of thought, if indeed it was there. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You know, User:General Ization, it's not funny at all that you should use a tool like that here in this discussion. That practically amounts to stalking in my book and I hope you get a boomerang bad-faith block as a result. And I've only logged out because I don't want to be the subject of any of your snooping or insinuations. 109.144.220.64 (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC) It's hardly "snooping" to do some minor investigating, using an endorsed tool, when someone who contributes to a discussion here uses very similar language and reflects very similar attitudes to the editor who is the subject of a discussion of their violations of policy. General Ization Talk 20:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Careful General Ization, you're getting close to the next thread being about you. – SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I see. I said I found it interesting; I still do. If you would like to see me blocked for that, start another thread here, please. General Ization Talk 20:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Close to the truth, but not quite all of it. Saying that you "just find it interesting that your editing patterns, thought patterns and modes of expression have become so similar" is too close to a suggestion of socking for comfort. – SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You can't have it both ways. If you think that the similarities and what I think about them are not appropriate to discuss here, please stop discussing them. General Ization Talk 20:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC) ? I'm not trying to have anything two ways. As an administrator you should know that if you want to make entirely false snide accusations against someone who will pull you up on it, it's probably best to let the matter slip away, not try and continue the bluster and bullshit. Can I suggest you step away and stop discussing this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC) If you think these two editors are one and the same, either put your money where your mouth is at SPI or end this type of commenting. Unless the aim is to infer that there's socking going on in addition to the matter you brought to ANI. We hope (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC) I think that was already answered above, in the form of an explicit denial from one of the parties. I'm not the one who is perpetuating this particular line of discussion. General Ization Talk 20:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Big accusations (even put snidely) need big evidence. Next time hold your tongue until you know what you're talking about. – SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You know what? You have no standing to tell me to "hold my tongue" about anything. Either you let this particular aspect of the discussion die out of its own accord, or you'll find me right here ready to respond to any accusations of improper conduct on my part. But do not tell me, in effect, to "shut up". You do not have that authority. General Ization Talk 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC) General Ization Talk 21:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC) You keep shooting, cowboy, particularly as I have not told you t shut up, just to get evidence before you shoot your mouth off next time. It's not me that's making unfounded uncivil accusations about others with absolutely no proof whatsoever. If you don't think it's worth lowering your head below the parapet to avoid dramah, then people will read into your stance accordingly. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Darkness Shines & SchroCat- Fan4life was acting like a child so got spoken to like one, I seen no valid reason to block, I propose this gets speedy closed. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not only about Cassianto's comments to Fan4life, nor was the list of examples at the top of this thread exhaustive by any means; it reflected examples based only on a cursory of their edits in the past four days. The editor does not limit their abuse to edit warriors, nor to any particular class of editors except those who make the mistake of disagreeing with them. General Ization ^Talk 20:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the preceding, and add: Assuming for the sake of discussion that this Fan4life was in fact "acting like a child", is that how you speak to children? I hope not. Might warrant an IBAN between you and children. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the pair of you stop trying to bludgeon other editors? You are both coming across as very hostile. Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Point taken as to bludgeon. I've said more than my share here and plan to withdraw at this point unless someone addresses my comments directly. As to hostile, I plead guilty to being highly hostile to chronic incivility. I am not hostile to any individual. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Fairly mild response to significant provocation. Folks need to stop poking the bear. Scr★pIron^IV 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction on Cassianto, who works very hard to add excellent sourced content. Yes, he should try not to be rude, but I don't see that as any big deal.Smeat75 (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support - civility is not optional. Anyone can be a little uncivil on occasion when tempers run high, but when it becomes a regular thing, it is not something to dismiss with a shrug and a suggestion that anyone who is targeted should grow a thicker skin. --bonadea contributions talk 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. People are called worse than moron in traffic, yet they don't flag down the nearest policeman over it and ask the offender be booked for it. We hope (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• You are free to submit WP:CIVIL to MfD. It's a Wikipedia policy, and its nutshell begins with : "Participate in a respectful and considerate way." It is not a suggestion for optional self-growth. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Didn't ask-not interested. We hope (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That speaks volumes, thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And you're totally welcome. We hope (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - wikipedia is a collaborative endeavor and repeatedly being uncivil to other users does not foster a collaborative environment. --Imminent77 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. or in the alternative, get rid of WP:NPA, because there is no point in having a policy that is not enforced against a user with this record of incivility. As Mandruss points out, the project should not bear the brunt of a user with anger issues. Three months is lenient when their long block record, almost all for incivility, is taken into account. I'd be happy with much longer or indefinite. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ultimately we're here to write an encyclopedia. Cassianto does a lot of that. The reverts were correct though the language unnecessary. The language was explosive rather than targeted/mean. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Darkness; surely this is less than what the Encyclopaedia expects? — fortunavelut luna 20:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - who else is going to write these articles? Is Cassianto the new Eric Corbett? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you've never seen us together, have you? Although Eric is a lot more intelligent than I am. Maybe Madruss General Ization will think that SchroCat and I are also Eric? Cassianto^Talk 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Kindly stop confusing me with General Ization. I corrected that error 26 minutes ago. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Mandruss, I've kindly stopped. My mistake. Sorry. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have it on good authority that, unlike the saintly Father Jackum, Cassianto doesn't have a brick. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Blatant and repeated incivility of this type drives away decent users. I don't believe I have encountered this editor previously. Looking at the diffs, I don't care how much content this editor provides if it's at the expense of others who merely disagree with the editor. Opposers seem to be OK with a Wild West mentality on this project, but their rationales are unconvincing. What I see is a classic internet bully who needs sanctioning. How many other content providers has this editor discouraged? Three months? I'd be OK with a year. Jusdafax 20:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I met Cassianto and SchroCat in a pub not too long ago. They said to everyone else that I liked Donald Trump and I was interested in improving articles about him. I told them to fuck off. We all laughed (as I knew they were taking the piss). It's called differences in culture - you cannot give offence, you can only receive it. For a similar, earlier, discussion, see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 41#Cassianto (you'll need to unhat it). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one who complains about "rudeness" by being rude about others. You couldn't make it up! Cassianto^Talk 20:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

And I'd say your snark proves my case. You don't get it, and proudly don't care, believing yourself immune from criticism. Jusdafax 20:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

My snark? I refer you to your contradictory "Wild West" comment above. Also, I require a diff for evidence that I consider myself "immune from criticism". How do you know what I believe? Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

One thing, from the About page: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively". If you can't be civil, and collaborate with other users, what's the point. —JJB^ers 21:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between users collaborating and users causing trouble. I have no time for trouble makers, but I have all the time in the world for collaborators. I'm here to write featured articles and write things which I hope people find interesting. Sure, I've tailed off slightly, but some of that has been a result of sitting around waiting for books (which I've bought for the benefit of Wikipedia) so I can complete Sandbox1, and the other, in Sandbox2, I'm waiting for a malicious RfC to finish before I carry on with it. The outcome, obviously, will decide on whether I do, or not. I'm not here to make friends; I'm not here to be nice to people who disrupt the project and who spoil my writing enjoyment. I'm here to be nice to people who collaborate, treat me the same as they themselves would want to be treated, and use common sense in adverse situations, rather than spout MoS shite at me, tag me on my talk page, drag me to drama boards, and then enforce make-believe policies on me that would, in everyday life, more than likely, be otherwise ignored. Some people here seem to forget what we are actually here for. We are here to create content. This is not a social media platform or a Tinder-style hook up site. It's an encyclopaedia where people write for the benefit of readers. The bottom line is, if someone behaves like a dick, then the chances are, they probably are one. If they are reasonable, then likewise, they probably are. It's not rocket science. But as has been demonstrated here tonight, if you do get on with someone "collaboratively", like I do with SchroCat, Ritchie, Martin, or We hope, then you get accused of being socks. Like I've said elsewhere, you can't make this up! . Cassianto^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about my suggestion to alter the civility policy to acknowledge a de facto exception for people such as yourself, those who are perceived as having earned the right not to be civil? That seems to be your position, even if not explicitly stated. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cassianto: Like Figureofnine said above, just because of the fact that you write content doesn't mean you get a get out of jail pass for incivility. —JJB^ers 22:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but could either of you point to the part in my comment above where I've said that because I "write content doesn't mean [I] get a get out of jail pass for incivility" and where I've "perceived as having earned the right not to be civil"? There seems to be a lot of poetic licence being used tonight without much evidence. But still, don't let the truth get in the way of sensationalism Cassianto^Talk 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I said That seems to be your position, even if not explicitly stated. Am I mistaken? And how do you feel about my suggestion concerning NPA policy, to explicitly carve out an exemption for people perceived as being too valuable to sanction for civility violations? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

But that's not quite my point. I've seen NPA actually become weaker and weaker over the years. The community abolished the civility noticeboard, WQA, in the view that civility is not important enough to necessitate a separate board. I am just acknowledging reality and suggest that perhaps we need to formally acknowledge the practice of permitting incivility from certain users. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Thanks to the good General for stepping in and all, but do we get to hear from User:Fan4Life about their actual view of this unsavoury language? And what about such encyclopedia stalwarts as User:Sdfakjdfjklklasdf, etc.?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The amount of content added to the encyclopedia does not preclude him from criticism, but it does grant him a degree of influence. Offering him clemency would be an adequate outcome for this situation. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - I didn't start this because I thought it would get overwhelming support, but because I'd just rather get the thing over with. Not surprised to see plenty of "CIVIL doesn't apply to certain users" arguments. See you all in three to six weeks when we all get to make the same arguments again. TimothyJosephWood 21:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Here we are again. Cassianto is back from another rage quit, and engaging in the usual superior, uncivil behavior we always see from him. A three month block is, if anything, too lenient; it's clear he sees no reason to change, and has no intention of doing so. But at least we can be spared his uncivil behavior for a time. I don't give a hoot how much content he contributes; it's no excuse for the kind of behavior he demonstrates on a regular basis. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Remeniscent of the kind of bile spouted over at Wikipediocracy. Welcome on over! ;) Cassianto^Talk 22:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think several editors have hit the nail on the head here. We have a civility policy that is supposed to apply to everyone- even content contributors. The place didn't fall apart last time when Cassianto was blocked and during his retirement, and he is wasting more time with these monthly ANI threads regardless of his contributions. I don't mind the odd 'fuck off' but the diffs below demonstrate that his incivility extends far further than that.

• "I'm afraid I'm about to end your sexual arousal by withdrawing from the edit war; please, carry on at your lesuire, the article is shit and not worth defending"
• "I don't know if you're meaning to be an insufferable little prick, or if you're just drunk or on drugs. Whatever it is, I suggest you go and have a lay down somewhere and decide which one it is."
• "Is it just a socialistic crusade that you consider yourself to be the Führer of?"
• "Personally, I couldn't give a fuck about your !vote and only persisted in getting an answer so others didn't think you were foolish. Unfortunately, you've lived up to that now. As I've said previously, you're views here are worth nothing and are as flawed as one-legged arse kicking competion."
• "You go ahead and bastardise all their hard work. I see you're from California; tell me, why is it always the Americans who seem to be even more obsessed over Infoboxes than anyone else"
• "What a lot of delusional bullshit."

I think the diffs really say it all. This goes beyond the odd 'fuck off'. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block, but I'd support a ban from infobox discussions and -reverts for three months. I'd be happier without this, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That issue isn't under discussion here. We hope (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no time to read this whole mess, but it seems that all quoted diffs come from infobox arguments. Without them, we might have more tranquility, no? (unwatching) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ARBcom is the answer to that issue so both sides are represented. We hope (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose with a reminder to Cassianto that his level of civility is stooping to that of a certain world figure elected in November 2016.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Lol, that's right, I'm also a sock of Donald Trump. Although I do take offence at the hair! Cassianto^Talk 22:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support three months is pretty long, but it's not as if Cassianto doesn't know about the civility requirements. I have no desire to minimize the significance of his content creation skills, but at some point he has used up the goodwill earned by those content skills. Lepricavark (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support I'd more warmly support a two-month block in light of the recent one-month block, but the encyclopedia is endangered by its double standard governing "content creators" (read: old-timers) and the rest of us peons. It's impossible to gauge how many potentially-constructive editors are driven off by incivility, and "it's the Internet" is a weak argument. Miniapolis 23:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block, suggest infobox topic ban - As mentioned by Gerda Arendt, pretty much all of the diffs about incivility come from infobox discussions. I would oppose a block because of the content creation by this user. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block on a vested contributor. Suggest BOOMERANG on OP. 207.38.154.23 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on what policy? General Ization ^Talk 23:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear IP who popped out of nowhere, see Wikipedia:No vested contributors and [92]. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- Enjoy! Cassianto^Talk 23:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction. We're building an encyclopedia, Cassianto does a lot of that. Who proposes to take on his workload if he is blocked?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is no deadline, so there can be no "workload" for any editor. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support It doesn't matter if a contributor does lots of work. If you can't work with them, they are not working as a cooperating contributor. Please do not allow a double standard for people who edit frequently. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Isn't Cassianto's support of his own block basically a self requested block? jcc (tea and biscuits) 00:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Cassianto has been blocked for 62 days as a result of a self-block request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Civility restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose a civility restriction for Cassianto. This restriction would make personal attacks result in a six month block and each civility breach, agreed on by the community, would result in a four month block. This would be appealable in one year, as per the long history of civility breaches. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 20:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Good concept but unenforceable. What constitutes a personal attack? How can we get agreement on the definition? Based on the discussion above, some users think it's okay to call another editor an "idiot" repeatedly. Is a personal attack anything that another user appeals to WP:AN[I] for a block about because they have "received offence"? That's so obviously abusable that I don't have to worry about spilling the beans in this comment. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Repeatedly"? Is this another fancy statistic pulled out of the air of makebelieve? Cassianto^Talk 20:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A personal attack is something that is unanimously (or pretty much) accepted as a personal attack. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • By who? Someone on behalf of another? With respect, that's utter bullshit. But thanks for your opinion. Cassianto^Talk 22:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not clear on this suggestion. A perusal of the block record indicates he has been here before. His behavior in this discussion is anything but encouraging. Rather than have more drama, a long separation from the project seems most viable. Otherwise we need to revise the civility policy to make it clear that certain editors have a de facto exemption based on length of service, past or present content creation and/or status as an administrator (not applicable here), and that users not so favored need to either take their abuse or get out of the project entirely. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Has he been asked to apologise? If I was really, really offended by his language, could he be asked to apologise to me? Antipodean marsupials, anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Do you mean here, or here? Or perhaps, both? But maybe this kind of rudeness is acceptable for someone offering good intent. Cassianto^Talk 21:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pah! We'll have none of your clever tricks here, Cassianto! You deserve all you get!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) Please open a separate thread if you feel you need to address my very predictable WP:CIVIL issues. Thank you.

• Comment - Just think .... all of this energy spent on this poxy thread .... could be better spent improving actual articles for our readers .... just a thought. –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

*cough* .... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That's very true, Davey. Part of the problem must be that the night shift at Springfield Nuclear Power Plant sometimes gets a bit boring? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I do think something needs to be done, but I don't think this precise proposal is the fix (it's too draconian, for one). Cassianto is the most prevalent abusive longterm editor I know of on Wikipedia, and he has gotten away with it for too long. I think what is in order here is an official final warning that the next serious breach will result in an unappealable three-month block. Unfortunately, this whole thread is tainted by the very poor and unwarranted block that Amortias enacted a while ago for something that was not problematical. But Cassianto's behavior, bullying, and threats do and will have to be dealt with sooner or later. It's hard for ingrained habits to change, but we have had at least one memorable instance a year ago where a longterm editor was taken to task for the nth time here for his bullying behavior, and he agreed to a self-requested block and a stay-away till he calmed down and changed his ways, which, thankfully, he has. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, could you please provide some diffs the for "threats" and "bullying" you wax so lyrical about? Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment One of the most frustrating parts of this is Cassianto refusal to take any of this seriously. He is openly mocking the process, unrepentant in his abuse, and even voting for his own block. Why is this behavior allowed when anyone else doing it would be reprimanded? --Tarage (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unenforceable. All the definitions of "personal attack" and "civility" are completely subjective and various editors in the past have displayed vastly differing interpretations. This whole thing is just the Malleus debate all over again, but at the end of the day we've just lost a valuable contributor for three months because as a community we can't deal with mean words. I can't believe how childish we are. We're turning into a university "safe space". Miniapolis is right to point out that we have no way of knowing exactly what the cost of incivility is, but we know exactly the cost of losing an editor like Cassianto for 62 days. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm... Basalisk, (no offense, but) isn't that two months? --George Ho (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If we're splitting hairs it's actually 2.0369 months. Who cares. It makes no difference to my point. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Basalisk and C.Fred. Unenforceable, and this becomes "minimum sentencing", thus subject to abuse. Not specific to this case, but generally speaking, I think people here and in the real world get offended entirely too easily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Civility sanctions you mean. Has this ever been done before at ANI (limiting any "personal attacks" from an editor with a block as the end result)? Wouldn't this be better dealt with through arbcom?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - as moot. The 62 day block is about twice what the offense merited, in my view; message hopefully has been received. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, what Dennis said and what Davey said. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Carrite, Dennis Brown and others above - and shouldn't this section be closed as Cassianto has now been blocked and therefore cannot comment or agree/disagree with what is being proposed here?Smeat75 (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moot, as above. Also unlikely to be effective - there's a long history of "civility parole" doing nothing but causing more friction. Importantly, though, that now-hatted section in the above section shouldn't go without a comment from someone uninvolved in this dispute. General Ization, baselessly accusing two community members of deliberate dishonesty is at least as uncivil as name-calling and pissiness, especially in that snarky, "I'm not saying, I'm just saying" way that you did. If someone else has been rude, it's not a license to be rude to them in return. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I have left him a polite notice on his talk page advising him to raise those sorts of concerns at SPI, or not at all. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DONTFANTHEFLAMES... — fortunavelut luna 07:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. The status of this proposal, which was initially offered as an alternative to a block, is no longer clear. In fact, I'm a bit surprised this sub-thread is still open. Is this now a preparation for what happens in 61 day's time? But I'd like to repeat the comment that I made in the previous thread: do we get to hear directly from User:Fan4Life who very quickly removed Cassianto's apology here? What was their actual view of that unsavoury language? And what about User:Sdfakjdfjklklasdf to whom Cassinato apologised here? If the community thinks that apologies are worthless, it should say so. Shouldn't those two editors have been formally notified about this discussion? I mean if they had been invited here and had said "no real offence taken", would the result above have been any different? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New user playing admin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Jhonleo22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been going around "playing admin", he left a block template on my and another user's talk page [93] [94] (note the misleading signature in the second example), has removed a BLPPROD from a page that it clearly applied to, with the edit summary "admin" [95], and his userpage is an exact copy of User:Widr. Simplexity22 (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly up to nothing useful, so blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Widr (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hang on. Why is User:Simplexity22 referring to an editor who's been here over 2 years as a "new user"? Why has the only attempts to communicate with him in that time, by people dropping templates on his page, rather than talking? Perhaps he now thinks that is how communication is done? Why is User:Widr applying the block, when they are WP:Involved? How is an indefinite block necessary, rather than something progressive? I'd suggest removing the block, communicating with the user which no one appears to have done before, and seeking wider consensus. Nfitz (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Signature forgery is the clearest example of bad faith I can think of. That's why it almost never happens. The user is welcome to explain in their block appeal how that was an innocent mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In all WP:GF that doesn't look like signature forgery to me; for it would also be date forgery! It looks like a horrific cut-and-paste blunder/incompetence to me. Not sure what the motive would be of Jhonleo22 for one to assume otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, they can appeal. If they are successful, an unwarranted block will be lifted with nothing adverse in the block log. It's a messy business sometimes, and a user making a "blunder" of that magnitude shouldn't complain about a short-term inconvenience. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

If I were an admin looking at this situation, I probably couldn't miss the history of the page that involved the "Admin" comment, and the other account there. I'd suggest this is not a good cause to get hung up on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, how is Widr involved? I did a quick look and did not see anything Widr had done that would make them involved. ~ GB fan 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's because Jhonleo22 copied Widr's userpage, which apparently makes Widr involved. In reality, no it doesn't; you're only involved if you have interacted with a user before, which Widr has not. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Close. It's because Widr blanked Jhonleo22's userpage, referring to it as vandalism (doesn't that violate WP:AGF?), and then blocked them. That doesn't pass the sniff test in my mind. Perhaps one might argue they are not involved; but I don't think you can argue that they may be seen to be involved - which is the best practice. Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Still not involved, implied or otherwise. Widr blanked Jhonleo22's userpage and then immediately blocked them. Given how quickly these actions took place (within the minute), it can be considered a single administrative action. As they have not interacted with Jhonleo before all this, Widr is not involved, and I doubt no one will see it as if they are.

Also, blatantly copying another user's userpage is vandalism, or at least can be construed as such. SkyWarrior 20:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's be careful. I believe some new editors have deliberately copied someone else's user page because they liked the look and feel. It can be done (1) acceptably, if one is careful to remove anything that doesn't apply, it can be done (2) carelessly, intending to do it right, but failing. and it can be done (3)vandalistically. (1) is fine, both (2) and (3) are problematic, but (2) deserves a trout while (3) deserves a strong warning at least.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Absurd. Clearing a user's page or having your user page copied doesn't make someone involved in any way under policy. Involved necessarily implies you have a stake in the outcome, such as blocking a user you are in an edit war with on an article. Involved doesn't mean you've cross paths or you've done some maintenance tasks before. Otherwise, admin would be paralyzed and couldn't act at all. If that was the case, you could easily game the system by copying every admin's page just to make them involved so no one could block you. If I actually block you, that isn't "involved" in such that I can't block you in the future, for instance. You are stretching WP:involved way beyond the scope of that policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure words like 'absurd' are constructive. It still has the appearance of being involved to me; though digging deeper, a block is probably the right move. Indefinite does seem a little overkill to me. But on the other hand, the behaviour has been very bizarre, and perhaps it is best to force them to communicate. I also note an indefinite block on the Tagalog wiki. Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

After taking another look at this, admittedly "new user" wasn't the best choice of words, but my point still stands. None of the things in my report on their own warrant a discussion here, but the combination led me to believe Jhonleo22 was acting in a bad faith attempt to try and mislead people into thinking he's an admin. I did attempt to communicate with them on my talk page in a now deleted comment, where I explained why I didn't violate WP:3RR, [96] I had not noticed the other problems at that point. After receiving no response after a few hours, I took a look through the user's contribs and saw the "admin" removal of a deletion tag, which happened after my reply to him. I concluded, perhaps hastily, that he wasn't going to communicate with me, and decided to bring this up here. Simplexity22 (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've taken another look too. Not quite sure of the process - but the end result doesn't seem grossly inappropriate. Some very bizarre edits, even if trying to give the benefit of the doubt based on language and experience. Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued vandalism by a blocked user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not long ago User:Wtamdcoulls received an indefinite block for persistant vandalism of Parental alienation syndrome, claiming the article impacted his family. Today, July 16, the newly minted User:Towtamdc started block deleting the same material and giving the same edit summmaries. I believe this may be sock-puppetry. Note the similarity of the usernames. He needs to be stopped.  — Myk Streja ^(when?) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

ducked. Alex Shih^Talk 03:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Widespread violations of NPOV and NOR by NOTHERE IP user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This report is about a user with a static IP, ‎174.71.243.93 (talk · contribs), who has been active for the past 14 months and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I became aware of this user when I warned them for this talk-page rant, which reads like a white supremacism pamphlet. A quick glance through their contributions is instructive. They have made a handful of acceptable edits, but the vast majority have constituted POV-pushing original research antagonistic to minority groups. Examples include edits that are

• pro-Apartheid
• racist
• anti-Semitic
• racist and anti-Semitic
• homophobic
• sexist.

They seem to have a fixation on all things Nazi and a fondness for the German army of World War II. Even when a given edit doesn't target minorities per se, there's no attempt whatsoever to write neutral, encyclopedic prose: [97]. I posted a level-4 warning, but it occurred to me that waiting for the next offense seems a bit pointless. A topic ban seems unworkable, given the wide variety of topics involved. A site ban would work, but a simple NOTHERE block would be a lot simpler. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support community ban - Clearly not contributing constructively to the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 1 year - there's no place for such blatant racist, antisemitic, homophobic and misogynistic bigotry here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible legal threat on Indigo (virtual assistant)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I just came across an expired PROD tag on Indigo (virtual assistant) which Justin.mota (talk · contribs) added with the rationale: for legal reasons this page must be removed, from the owners of this application. contact [email removed but still visible on article]. Would this count as a legal threat? I'm not sure what to do in these situations, so I thought it'd be best to ask for other user's input. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like an attempt to intimidate anyone. Instead, it alludes to vague "legal reasons" as a deletion rationale. I don't think it's much different than saying, "for important reasons this page must be removed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The PROD on the article is expired. Why not just delete the article, and the PROD, along with it? Problem solved! John from Idegon (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that this page about our virtual assistant was created by the company Artificial Solutions - the company I work for. This page needs to be deleted as soon as possible FOR LEGAL REASONS. I have requested this multiple times already, and have provided multiple email addresses to contact if there is any uncertainty. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin.mota (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Justin.mota: If there truly are legal reasons for deleting the article, please communicate them to info-enwikimedia.org. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The PROD has been contested by Future Perfect at Sunrise so the only way to get the page deleted is through the articles for deletion process. Considering that the issue ended up here at the Drama Board, you might want to avoid the use of "legal reasons" as a rationale. Favonian (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Favonian: Since the prod was originally placed on 20 June, it's a little bit late to start contesting it- what, three weeks later. — fortunavelut luna 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not the one to whom you should direct that remark, but in general: WP:DEADLINE. Favonian (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes as long as the article hasn't been deleted, it makes no sense to say the prod can't be contested. In fact even after deletion, the prod can still be effectively challenged at any time by asking for the article to be undeleted, there's no time limit. (The only exception will generally be if there's a good reason why the article needs to remain deleted.) Also the PROD process explicitly allows the uninvolved admin reviewing the prod to simply remove the prod without deleting. And likewise an admin can simply decide on their own to undeleted. Besides 20th June is misleading. It was removed by Cluebot in less than a minute. Without the prod being on the article, it's easily possible no one notice it was placed, I mean even if someone checked the article history there's little point looking every Clueboth reversion and the edit summary did not indicate a PROD was being placed. Besides it's also questionable if you need to contest a prod which was removed by Cluebot. So the more accurate time frame is about 8 days. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It had been removed by the bot you see. — fortunavelut luna 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

WHAT LEGAL REASONS? -Roxy the dog. bark 11:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Very loud ones, Roxy! :) — fortunavelut luna 12:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as how the alleged legal threatener has now been blocked, I suppose we will never know. Meh. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't that I see. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

So aren't we going to block for legal threats? —JJB^ers 17:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest an immediate WP:NLT block.--WaltCip (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be COPYVIO, and judging by news coverage and reviews, I'd say it would survive an AfD. Block for legal threat. Ignore legal threat. Carry on. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Also at ticket:2017071310013168 where I pointed out how they could request the deletion but explained that it would likely be a waste of time.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

To sum this up: I don't see the rationale for the PROD tagging by Justin.mota here or here a legal threat - in that it intimidates or threatens legal action against someone. Justin.mota - if there really are legal reasons that directly involve your concerns, you need to contact the correct team by emailing those concerns to [email protected] - they have the proper tools and training to investigate and assist you with this particular situation. Repeatedly adding proposed deletion tags to the article citing that a legal reason exists will only waste your time; following the directions I (as well as DoRD) gave you here is what you need to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Racist deletionism, fresh off a block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A Great Catholic Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is fresh off a 1-week checkuserblock for abusive editing while logged out. Now we have abusive editing while logged-in [98], [99] which wouldn't be so bad in isolation but the explanation in the context of being right off a block, appears to indicate WP:NOTHERE. Toddst1 (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The two deletions are arguable (ie should be taken up on the July 12 talk page by A Great Catholic Person on its merits if they want to pursue it), but the explanation that is linked actually uses a double negative, and based on AGF, I think we should extend the benefit of the doubt until it is proved that it is more than the grammar that is being mangled here. I'd be happy to intervene if I'm proved wrong about this. So ping me if it happens. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Although AGCP's English is not the best, I think their comment is clearly racist. This editor has some very odd problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear, I have to agree, it's hard not to read that comment as racist. I'd say User:A Great Catholic Person has some explaining to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On the surface it does look like it. But if you read carefully, there's actually TWO double negatives, which negate BOTH the racist comments. So technically there's nothing wrong here. Whether that be extreme dumb luck, or very careful structuring of the sentence, to play with Todd, I don't know. The English seems fine to me. Also, I'm not sure where the evidence is of the disruptiveabusive editing while logged out that User:Bbb23 mentions (I couldn't find anything using the search at WP:Sock. The explanation is plausible enough; must be a dozen people who's mobiles, etc., pick up my wireless when they are at my house. I'm also unsure why a perfectly reasonable unblock request was ignored for a week, with pretense made that they weren't addressing the block issue - which they did do. Though perhaps the block evidence tells more of a tale. Presumably as the alleged racist statement was so bold, there'd be other evidence - but I don't see any in a cursory search. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say anything here about "disruptive editing". If you're referring to the sock block, it was straight-up vandalism, and the user's responses were not ignored. Here's the comment we're talking about in this thread: " I don't understand why Wikipedia has added more content about Indian things, and really do not like it. I... just do not, and would have reverted the pending edit. I also do not think Indians are not really notable, too." The first two sentences are absolutely clear, contain no double negatives, and are clearly racist. Only the last sentence has a double negative (one) and taken in context elaborates on the racism. It's not so much the user's English is obviously poor; their wording is often awkward and either the product of a bad writer or a non-native speaker. My involvement in this started because of the user's explanation for why he used rollback and then reinstated the edit they had reverted - something like, "I just wanted to start the process over". I still don't have the slightest idea what that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your involvement in this started before that, given you blocked them. Sorry, abusive editing, not disruptive. Where is the evidence of the sock/abusive editing? Yes, they are both double negatives. The first one basically says they "don't like that they don't understand" ... and the second one basically says that "they don't think Indians are not notable"; if that was racist, it would have said either "don't think Indians ARE notable" or "think Indians are not notable". Both are double negatives. And I have to suspect, very carefully crafted. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, not having a clue about what you're talking about doesn't prevent you from making rather bold assertions. That includes your comment to Doug below.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see how that unhelpful and unnecessarily rude comment further's the discussion. I know some admin's think that they no longer need to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:5P - but that is not true. Why not simply point to where the abusive editing is ... oh hang on, I realised the sock search is for the archives, not the current ... hmm, nothing there either. I assume it's under the IP then. Can you just point to it, rather than simply being rude and obstructive? It's quite clear there are two double-negatives; I don't see how that is a debate; the question is it because their English is so poor, or was it carefully crafted just fishing for a reaction. If the latter, I'd be keeping quiet too - that's half the fun. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User also seems to refuse to address the issue by deleting the ANI notice original poster posted on the talk page. Alex Shih^Talk 15:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just posted to their talk page saying it appears they aren't going to defend themselves and asking why I shouldn't block them. It isn't as though they haven't been editing today.[100] Doug Weller talk 18:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller And they deleted your question, along with George Ho's suggestion that they cooperate and be more polite, with the edit summary "Leave me alone. I'll start over." [101]. If there have been no previous problems with this editor, is it at all possible that this is a compromised account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: There's no indication the account is compromised. The edit summary when removing the two Talk page messages is consistent with what I said above: "Leave me alone, I'll start over". The user should be blocked. It should be more than a week (the sock block). The only question in my mind is whether it should be limited or indefinite. I'd like to hear Doug's view on this, though, rather than my taking unilateral action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH - this has only been open a few hours. Given them a few days, if no damage is being done. Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take a closer look at WP:NORUSH, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we should expeditiously deal with editors who express racist views and then blatantly ignore the community's request for explanations while they continue editing the encyclopedia. I'd say that it's you, and not Bbb23, who needs to re-examine their position in this matter, as you seem to be defending the editor in question while wearing blinders as to the obvious meaning of their comments. I suggest you forgo any additional comments, as you're not helping them any, or yourself for that matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct, misremembered that one - sorry about that. However the point still holds. Let the person sleep on it; if there's no ongoing damage to the project. I'm not wearing blinders - I'm simply noting that there are two double-negatives - and quite frankly, that's a lot of luck, or very carefully constructed. However, I'm not defending - or judging - what I'm - asking for - and rather confused why such simple questions aren't answered, is where is abusive editing while logged out documented (which IP?)? Or better yet, is there another example of such racism? PS. And why were his unblock requests simply ignored? He addressed the issues. I can see that it perhaps might take a couple of attempts, as he wasn't explaining very clearly at first, but it should have sat there for 6 days untouched. That's not right. Nfitz (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There is one double negative, more than adequately explained by Bbb23's analysis. You're bending over backwards to accept the best possible interpretation of the editor's words and actions, which also happens to be the least likely one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not difficult to read the first two sentences as another double negative. But if one were to read it as racist, it would be so completely beyond the pale, that I'd think there'd be other examples out there too. I'm not accepting - I'm waiting for further evidence, and for Bbb to point to the IP. Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"Having an open mind is a virtue, but not so open that your brains fall out." James Oberg, quoted by Carl Sagan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - not sure why you can't simply pretend to believe in WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or WP:5P4. Frankly, whatever odd stuff is going on with this user, pales to experienced editors who believe the central pillars of the project don't apply to them. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence is not going to be made available, so you'll remain dissatisfied if that's what you want. —SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not even aware there was checkuser evidence! Of course I don't expect to get the checkuser evidence. Just the surrounding discussion. And not even a quote of what was said that was so terrible. Was it racist? Was it editing WP pages? For all we now, it was something as mundane as editing as an IP and working in their own userspace. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• That comment is blatantly racist. AGF is not a suicide pact; we don't need to contort ourselves to try to find any possible alternative interpretation to one sentence when the first two make the meaning clear. This behavior and these comments are not conducive to building an encyclopedia and do not conform with expectations of editors' behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's so out of character though. I did dive through their edit history. I could see nothing even remotely comparable. If anything the opposite. Given he's edited in the area of the sub-continent historically, I wonder if it was just very badly worded, or a bad joke. Either way, I don't think we can block a user who has self-identified as autistic, on what could have been a one-time blunder. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So after blanking several attempts to communicate, the user goes on to edit (although constructively) like nothing ever happened. I'll try to ask again for the user's input on the clearly racist remark. Alex Shih^Talk 05:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

They were around for all of 8 minutes since the ANI think started. Given there's no ongoing issues, and the racist comment is so utterly out of character (assuming it is racist), I wouldn't read too much into it.

• • It saddens me because this editor has been very helpful in cleaning up SCHOOLCRUFT, but I agree the comments about not liking stuff pertaining to India is blatantly racist. I also agree that AGF is not a suicide pact, but could offer a possible AGF explanation: They are relatively new. Perhaps they don't realize this isn't us-Wikipedia. It's weak, but as I said, they have been helpful. The bit about give them time above is garbage. We block preventatively. Give them a week off now, not later. They can defend themselves in an unblock request. If there is any hint if the racism after the block clears, an indeff is in order. --John from Idegon (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Bbb23: I agree there is no reson to wait. I don't think a week is sufficient given that even after the week's block for editing logged out they continue to just delete warnings without communicating. I see that their explanation for the sock block is that their friends used their IP address but there's no indication AGCP is going to secure their router. I'm also bothered by the statement " I will even edit constructively anonymously because I have done that as an IP address before." I'm going to block for two weeks with a note that if the router isn't secured and there is more editing from the IP, or if the editor continues to fail to communicate with other editors, an indefinite is likely. Doug Weller talk 06:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Hang on - give them a chance to respond. They've only been around for a few minutes since this started. The edit in question is one-time, completely out of character. The editor has self-identified as austistic, it could just be a huge blunder. It could be a bad in-joke, given the projects he's involved in. Given how messed up the last block was, with people clearly ignoring a reasonable block unrequest, and then claiming they weren't addressing the issue, but ignoring the bit where he had addressed the issue, and then ignoring completely for a week the response that directly addressed the issue. There's no indication of ongoing damage. There's no pattern to this. It's not even related to the previous block - is anything necessary until we understand what that comment meant? 07:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz, I have to ask in all seriousness, are you on drugs? This thread has been open 26 hours; the reported editor deleted his notification of the thread. There are documented incidents of multiple racist comments. This is not the only thread where your remarks are so far off point as to be obstructive. Seriously.... please. If you cannot follow a discussion, don't comment. --John from Idegon (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately I am on drugs ... for the blood pressure. There's was absolutely no reason to question my sobriety. I have no idea why some people think it's okay to be so uncivil and bully here, and toss out one of the five pillars. This is once again completely disgraceful and abominable behaviour. I've been asking for confirmation of additional racist comments. I haven't seen any. It's possible (or even probable) I've missed something. Why not simply point to the additional racist comments? And then you'd simply say "but have you seen this", and I'd say "hang them then", and it would be a simple exchange. Nfitz (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I read his unblock requests. Not once did he respond directly to suggestions about making his router secure. Sure, he said he wasn't tech savvy, but I couldn't tell if that was about the CU comment or what. In any case, if he was serious he'd ask how he could stop his friends. Saying he will teach his friends how to use his IP address constructively isn't enough. Saying he will edit logged out doesn't help. Having a history of deleting rather than responding to warnings didn't help. He made multiple edits during the 16 hours after he deleted the ANI notice. He also deleted mine and George Ho's rather than respond on his talk page and here. None of this shows an editor who is willing to listen. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is one responsible for what other people edit though, from their own devices? If they were mobile edits (where ARE all these edits I keep asking), do they fit the pattern of his edits? I don't think it's reasonable to hold responsible for IP editors, particularly friends. Simply block the IP, not the editor. The explanation made perfect sense. 16 hours? ANI notice came at 2:18 pm Eastern ... oh wait, why does that come from you, not Todds? Oh ... I missed the earlier 01:55 am notice. Ah, that's a bit different then. Still, seems very uncharacteristic. I can't help think we are missing something here. Nfitz (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If we are, he had plenty of time to explain himself and several requests. Doug Weller talk 08:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charlo Greene

I've brought this up here in the past, per this discussion and no action was taken. The question of sockpuppetry was also brought up, but I think this may just be a case of a few people coming to Wikipedia with an agenda.

Long story short, the user AlaskanCannabis has repeatedly tried to add negative information to the article for Charlo Greene, sourcing it to things like a Reddit AMA and an occasional news story. The claims are of things like her stalking and harassing someone (including making rape threats), of her being a scam artist, and the like. It's all extremely weak sourcing and the main thing they've tried to use is a Reddit AMA that has someone posting news articles and making their own claims from said articles. I've tried explaining to them several times that we can't include negative content without a heck of a lot of coverage due to BLP guidelines and it needs to be extremely carefully written at that. It's not that I have any love for Greene, it's just that I don't think that claims of this nature have any place on Wikipedia without a huge amount of coverage to justify inclusion purely because it's the type of stuff that people love to sue over.

Recently they tried adding information about the Reddit AMA to the page with this edit and they posted a comment to my talk page saying that not including this information makes it promotional. I'll be very honest, their sole purpose for being here seems to be to include this information and I've outright warned them now that they are running the risk of getting blocked. Personally, I'd highly endorse a block right here and now - the only reason they don't have one right now is that I'm involved with this and want any block to be on the up and up. I don't think that they have anything to contribute to Wikipedia that won't be negative coverage of Greene. I really don't think that this should close without them being blocked, as they've been warned in the past about this here and a post at BLP/N ended with people agreeing that the content had no reason being on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

While bearing in mind WP:BITE, their attitude doesn't show that they are willing to take on board the advice of others. Not to mention their singlemindedness with regards to Charlo Green more or less sums up WP:SPA. Anything less than a commitment to mentorship and a 6 month topic ban from Charlo Green should be met with a block. If they're here with an agenda then this would effectively be the same as an indefinite block. If they do intend to be a contributing member of the community, then this should show that intention. Blackmane (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

So Rampart is allowed to have a special section to discuss their AMA, but Charlo Greene can't? Everything I have posted has been well documented by the Alaska media, not sure why Tokyogirl79 keeps making up falsehoods in order to help protect Charlo's image. Tokyogirl79 seems to have no interest in making a page for Rocky Burns, or any of the other individuals involved. And now she wants to have me banned because I don't agree with her? How ridiculous. It's obvious your motives are politically motivated based upon the subjects race and/or gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlaskanCannabis (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Throwing the "you are politically motivated to attack based off the subject's race/gender" card is not going to go over well here, as it is a personal attack on editors. Please refrain from useless attacks like your last sentence. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've answered this at my talk page, but frankly Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and in order to include even small bits of controversy (freaking out at an AMA and changing things to swear words can be seen as controversial) we need to have a lot of coverage that goes into depth and shows that it's notable in the long run. Most times when someone acts erratically like this, that activity isn't considered noteworthy until some time later, when people write about someone's overall life and actions. Sometimes actions in the short run can be notable, but it has to have almost global coverage or it otherwise runs the risk of smacking of WP:TABLOID. I just don't think that you're really here for the right reasons, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate POV template removal by User:Jorm

Please see here. I may be right or wrong in applying the template to that page, but I applied it in good faith, and it deserves at least a discussion -- not a removal with a one-word edit summary. Furthermore, none of the conditions in Template:POV#When_to_remove were met, IMO. I think the tag should be restored at least long enough to to be discussed. If I'm a minority of one in my opinion, then that'll be apparent soon enough and it can be removed then.—Chowbok ☠ 06:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You state that "none of the conditions in Template:POV#When_to_remove were met," but I don't see that you've met the conditions for application of the template — "identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies." Saying that It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out does not identify any specific issues nor does it address how you believe these issues should be handled with reference to our content policies. Rather than run to ANI because someone removed what amounts to a drive-by tag, why not slow down, engage on the talk page and discuss what you think should be added? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you make a point which would be reasonable as a response to my comment on the talk page, but I don't think it's a sufficient reason for removing the tag before it's even discussed. It certainly beats "Nope" as an explanation, though.—Chowbok ☠ 07:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chowbok, you might as well give up before you start. The likes of Jorm police those articles and you'll never get your way (even if you're right/reasonable). Pain in the bum, I know, but sooner or later they'll become inactive (you just have to live longer!). FWIW, I've used that sort of explanation in a POV tag before now and then discussed on the talk page without any great fuss - but Jorm etc will stonewall. - Sitush (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While I believe the tag is premature, I do feel it is worth discussion and have thus engaged on the talk page. These articles read as extremely positive and mention nothing about how polarizing these individuals are. I invite Chowbok and Jorm to work towards a solution. --Tarage (talk) 07:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you point to a single example of Jorm "working towards a solution", ever? He has his cute little phrases like "cool story, bro", "talk to someone who cares", and "because you are an asshole." By cutting and pasting those phrases he avoids having adult conversations with those who disagree with him. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, Guy. He's not a positive to the project, just a niggling presence. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are dozens of articles where editors express their dissatisfaction by adding POV tags without a plausible justification. It is not enough to express an opinion that the content is POV—what is needed is the precise text that is claimed to be POV, and why, with reliable sources. In an ideal world, Jorm would have spent an hour explaining all that, including paraphrasing the documentation displayed at {{POV}}. However, that is not possible in articles such as Brianna Wu which has "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" at Talk:Brianna Wu. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing on the template page says that the "precise text" needs to be pointed to, actually. It says to add it when "you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article" and that you point to specific policies that the page violates. I agree I didn't go into as much detail as I probably should have, but the template is pretty clearly meant to signify the start of a discussion. And again, if people disagree with me, the thing to do is to discuss it--not simply remove the template, especially on a 1RR page.—Chowbok ☠ 07:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• The article in question is one of a series of contentious pages (WP:ARBGG) where each comma is fought over. In a case like that, it is unacceptable for someone unhappy that the article does not express their POV to put a shame tag at the top. You added the tag in good faith. Please accept that it was removed in good faith. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• But was it? Jorm is as biassed as they come at articles such as this and he knows how to lawyer. - Sitush (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Given Wu is under GG sanctions, it is one thing if an IP/SPA came along and dropped the POV tag, or if an editor that had been tussling with others on that page came along and did the same. Jorn or any other admin would be in the rights to quickly remove it without discussion. But when an experienced editor, apparently uninvolved editor (either on that page or in the topic area) as Chowbok appears to be comes by and tags POV, there better be a good reason to remove it, and a single curt word is not sufficient. --MASEM (t) 14:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am also an experienced editor who is completely uninvolved with Wu or gamergate. I made a good-faith conclusion that the requirements for adding the POV template have been satisfied and indeed, that there is a POV problem that should be discussed. I re-added the tag and was reverted. So, ignoring the content dispute (ANI does not issue rulings on content disputes), we have a behavioral problem, which is multiple editors refusing to follow Template:POV#When to remove. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any post on the article talk page from you explaining what specific, actionable changes you believe need to be made to the article to make it NPOV. You aren't following Template:POV#When to use. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. If you're pointing to your line about the "moon rocks" thing, you don't appear to be arguing that it's an NPOV issue; indeed, I don't see how it's an NPOV issue either way to include or not include a throwaway line about a single tweet she made. It appears to be a question of what merits inclusion in a brief biography, and that's a matter for editorial consensus to decide. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• If you don't see any post on the article talk page that you think explains specific, actionable changes that need to be made, the proper thing to do is to ask for an explanation, not to remove the POV tag during an active and ongoing discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This strikes me as a disagreement over content and consensus. I don't know whether an informal poll on the talk page is sufficient, or whether we should go full RfC, but I think finding out whether there's broad agreement or not would be useful. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement over content and consensus. If it was it would be rejected at ANI and the participants told to take it to the article talk page. This is a user behavior problem. To be specific, multiple editors have removed a valid POV tag in direct violation of policy instead of following policy and discussing the POV concerns on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

While I understand your argument, I will have to respectfully disagree. This strikes me as another facet of WP:BRD. Two editors making the same edit once strikes me as thin gruel. But à chacun son goût. Dumuzid (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the walled garden that any page related to GG has become (and now appearing in other areas), and why I've kept out of it as much as possible since. Just as there was at ArbCom, there have been groups of editors circling wagons around these topics that do not want the POV to be challenged, and while we have to be vigilante in the area against IP/SPA that want to disparage living persons, dismissal of concerns of previously-uninvolved, experienced editors like this is troubling and what ArbCom had warned about, even if it is over the exact specifics of when one can add or remove the POV tag. This is just a slight offence, nowhere near the trouble to go to the hassle of an AE report when a trout will do, but these are signs of the larger problem here. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof, regarding your claim that "I don't see any post on the article talk page from you explaining what specific, actionable changes you believe need to be made to the article to make it NPOV." two editors have already done that. Direct quotes:

"I realize this article is a target for trolls, but it is clearly overcompensating in the other direction. It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out."

"Agree. This article has no negatives at all. Sadly, it appears all three of the articles relating to this have not a single point of criticism in them. I'd go and hunt down some reliable sources myself but I don't have the time to do that right now. Can we agree there is a bias problem though?"

Regarding your claim that "You aren't following Template:POV#When to use. (The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor.)", I am not the editor who added the tag. The editor who added the tag did discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and it is crystal clear what he believes the NPOV violation is. Please don't accuse me of not following policy when I have followed policy to the letter.

A POV tag was added. The editor adding it followed the rules and started a discussion explaining what he thinks there is a POV problem. Removing the tag instead of discussing his concerns with him is against policy, and those who have violated the policy should be warned, and if they persist, blocked. Note that this is a behavioral problem that has nothing to do with whether the editor who added the tag is right or wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"No negatives" is neither specific nor policy-based. There is no policy that says we have to include "negatives" for their own sake, and "negatives" is impossibly overbroad and vague. There is nothing actionable about saying "there are no negatives." An actionable NPOV argument would be, "Specific issue A is not covered in a balanced way and here are reliable sources X, Y and Z which present a viewpoint that isn't represented in the article." That would be a reasonable starting point for a policy-based discussion on what should be included in this biography. "This article doesn't say anything mean about her" is not.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"It reads like a press release. You'd never know that she was even a slightly controversial person from reading it. All content thought to show her in a negative light has been quickly weeded out." is specific and policy-based. The policy is WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What is "specific" about it? It doesn't identify anything that the user believes needs to be added from reliable sources because it cites no sources. Simply declaring that something is so is unhelpful - it creates no grounds for reasoned discussion or consensus-building. Take the time to find sources first - is that so difficult? If there aren't sources to be found, then the question answers itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I will leave it to the administrators to deal with your misinterpretation of our rules about when to remove a POV tag, should you be foolish enough to act of those beliefs. I am done responding to you. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of removing it at this point; of course, the NPOV tag is not designed as a permanent scarlet letter and if there isn't a consensus to make any changes, it will naturally be removed at the point the discussion dies or is concluded. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95

Chernobog95 has repeatedly been spamming links, whether copyrighted, unreliable, or not on several pages, most notably North Korea and weapons of mass destruction and Hwasong-14. He has attacked a number of users a number of times before and during his initial block, claiming that his edits and attacks on users are "justified". He refuses to take responsibility for the trouble he has caused and instead continues argue with the said users. --SamaranEmerald (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It evident by your and others reactions that criticism is considered an attack by your standards and others who can't handle it while also my block under reason of "unsourced or poorly sourced material" which is absolute fallacy as is your claim that are unreliable and contradictory. If 38 North is not reliable then David Wright who made 6700km estimate is not reliable nor John Schilling who made 8000km estimate who was interviewed/cited in Yonhap News article used on Hwasong-14 page and you removed source to his article and his revised estimate of range for the missile while also continuing to force that 6700km estimate which David Wright later on in John Schilling article acknowledged that he did not take into account Earth's rotation and that missile would go farther when fired towards eastern direction which that article was removed containing both individuals who's estimates are used on Hwasong-14 article. I have repeated this multiple times and this has been ignored. John Schilling articles for 38 North are used on Hwasong-10, Hwasong-12, KN-08 and others while also on North Korea WMD page prior to me adding another source from 38 North. David Wright, John Schilling, Jeffrey Lewis and others have wrote for 38 North. You just couple hours ago removed Jeffrey Lewis tweet in which he shared estimate. Article written by Lewis is sourced on KN-08 and Korean People's Army Strategic Force. I have said probably multiple times, do you research. You did not even bother to look around on wikipedia as evident by your labeling these people and the site as unreliable sources thus don't try bullshit yourself out of this mess you and others have started with your claims fueled by ignorance. Chernobog95 (talk) 20:41 13 July 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 18:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope that Chernobog can find a way to work with other editors, because I think their knowledge would be useful on these difficult articles. But I'm not hopeful. Also see User talk:Andy Dingley#User:Chernobog95 Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like there's a discussion currently ongoing at User talk:Andy Dingley - because if this, I'd like to hold off on considering action at this time unless disruption is blatant and continues. What URLs is this user adding that is unambiguous spam? Can anyone provide diffs as well as the reference? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the edits of the articles related to the historical figures of Vietnam

I see a lot of Chinese editors editing articles about Vietnamese historical figures in a disrespectful way. They edit figures' names and replace them with names based on their country's historical records (History is actually written by us, not them, but they edited all, they follow their own ideas without considering that what they do is wrong or right). I cannot accept this!

• They replace the name "Vietnam" or "Đại Cồ Việt" by the name "Annam" (In Vietnamese mind, "Annam" is the name referring to Vietnam used by French colonizers to stress that we are their slaves). This is disrespectful!

I know that the Chinese hate the Vietnamese and they always consider Vietnamese their descendants, slaves, dogs. But stop dreaming now, this is international encyclopedia, not Chinese subjective encyclopedia! Everyone needs to know truths, not dreams drawn by the Chinese about us! I'll re-edit all but please ban the Chinese editors that insulted our history. Thanks Huy Trịnh (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Whether you can accept this isn't all that important, whether the writing fits inside the local rules is more so. First, all else equal, usage is supposed to follow the original edits. This is mostly to prevent whiplash back-and-forth between, say, North American English and British English, but you can make a pretty strong case this is something parallel. So, you are on pretty solid ground here.

Next, articles with a strong connection to someplace or something use the vocabulary proper to it. If you are writing about passenger car tires made for the US domestic market in South Carolina, you don't spell it tyres. So, you are also on fairly firm ground wanting Viet subjects to use Vietnamese terms....but you have to enforce it edit by edit, and writer by writer. No one is gonna ban an entire country from participation, tempting as that often is.

Finally, you have to take into account that this is an English-language operation, and, "Annam" predates French colonialism, and was a perfectly reasonable exonym even for what had been Champa. Reading malice into that isn't helpful, it makes you sound like you are looking for a fight regardless. Anmccaff (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Where exactly is this happening at? Can anyone provide diffs please? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page abuse by blocked user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 79.209.245.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a blocked IP-sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cocainaenvenenada, is abusing talk page access by repeatedly attacking other users who have reverted and blocked them, so would someone please remove TPA? I would also suggest increasing the block since they obviously intend to continue their disruption as soon as their block expires. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This account has been compromised.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello, and to whomever is reading this, I am sorry for vandalizing the Wikipedia. This account has had it's login details shared on BugMeNot, a website meant to allow people to get around having to register. I request you block it. Speedwiki (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Enamul Hasan Ferdous

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have recently noticed that the user Enamul Hasan Ferdous has been vandalizing the pages of various universities such as University of Oxford, University of Cambridge. I tried reverting some edits but it's going out of control. Therefore I suggest action be taken against him. Darius robin (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The best place to report clear vandalism/spam is WP:AIV; I've filed a report there and an admin should be around sometime soon to drop the hammer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: Since you are a rollbacker, could you please help revert his edits. Darius robin (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Darius robin (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hateful Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is just disgusting that this editor said that transgender people should be gassed. They should be blocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Underground&oldid=790808634 --Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ban meant for another user applied to my account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My account, User:Moltenflesh, was just banned for being a sockpuppet and all of its edits undone. No one said anything beforehand, no investigation was done, and I have no connection to the account they give...I think a detection system may have misfired for some reason. Is there a way that ban could get reviewed or at least someone explain the reasoning behind it? MoltenFlesh2 (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MoltenFlesh2 - Please see the message I've left on your talk page on this account. I've provided you instructions on how to properly ask questions and appeal your block without violating policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not so inactive user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Inactive_user_20171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Account was renamed citing security concerns but the editor is currently blocked and under a topic ban broadly related to the Iberian Peninsula. They are evading both the block and topic ban by continuing to edit as an IP. They linked the account to IP addresses by editing to remove their former name. I can provide a diff but wanted to avoid any accusations of outing.

Active IP:

2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:C945:CBF4:F41B:487F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3527:a8e2:4390:c682 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:2102:352c:2e22:760e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:955c:f325:272e:22a2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:f5c2:5530:2ef:16c2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3d97:7b79:21cd:9d0c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:3427:8cb:2607:dc70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:b168:ab62:d1be:af8a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2602:30a:c0ff:a6e0:9c58:4361:578a:3df4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this list is complete, I'm aware of at least one of the IP accounts being blocked for vandalism. This personal attack [102] against Gaditano23 is typical of this editor. I'm wondering if a range block is required? WCM_email 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

PS I am prohibited by this user to post on their talk page, so if someone would do the ANI notice I would appreciate it. WCM_email 16:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: which talk page? In any case, WP:NOBAN does not apply to notices , etc., that are necessary for WP processes, like mandatory ANI reports. — fortunavelut luna 16:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. By the way, prohibition of posting on user's talk pages does not apply to required notices such as these, so you could've posted the notification yourself regardless. SkyWarrior 16:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I know I can post a message like this but if I were to do so the editor concerned will react in an extreme manner. I appreciate you doing that for me. WCM_email 17:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This is probably best handled at WP:SPI. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Compromised accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have reasons to believe (off-wiki evidence, WP:BEANS) that these accounts are compromised:

• Zindhagee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• rre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trololol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• pubserv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• editor900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please contact me via email if details are required. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: You've got mail - I think something similar was reported on IRC, but if you could confirm via email I will act on it immediately -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding that rre is not registered, and pubserv is not registered (redirect) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Email received and replied. - ☆ Bri (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by IP now at 4 reverts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 82.32.154.144 (talk · contribs)

This IP is editing disruptively by continuing to reinsert unsourced material regarding the cast at Red Sparrow. I made a bold edit of removing the material, but the IP keeps adding it again ([103] [104] [105] [106]). They are now at 4 reverts and edit warring. They've been blocked for disruptive editing in the past. I ask that an admin please block. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I just blocked the IP for 24 hours for edit warring on the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, Callmemirela - Do be careful with edit warring and 3RR as well. I know it's easy to get sucked into reverting problematic edits in situations such as this, but definitely be careful ;-). Just remember that we're not supposed to engage in edit warring - it doesn't matter how "correct" your edits are. If it's over content and isn't an action that's listed as an exemption, it's considered a revert. No worries though; you're fine - just wanted to mention it to you as a friendly reminder to keep a look out for yourself is all. Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

24.180.168.42 back at it

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:24.180.168.42, who on July 12 was blocked for 36 hours for persistent additions of unverified birth-date claims, almost immediately began again after the block ended. He has no interest in discussion, and his only comments to anyone have been this barrage of talk-page insults. I've reverted two such uncited birth- and death-date claims today —[107], [108] — but because he also goes into Wikipedia year articles to make the same unverified personal-life claims, his disruption, as his edit-history shows, is on dozens of pages. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

69.47.136.111

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 69.47.136.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Please block. Continued disruptive editing following expiration of block: [109] [110] Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It seemed like an WP:DISPUTE. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Block has been re-applied and for one month. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A page hacked or what -- History of the Russian Orthodox Church

Dealt with. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church

First line in text: The Kievan Orthodox Church (Russian: pussian Православная Церковь)... Who wrote "pussian"?

Later in text: ...areas known as Kievan Rus that are now the states of Ukraine, Belarus, and mordor. Who wrote "mordor" for Russia?

And more: ...While Magog (pussia) lay under Mongol rule from the 13th (Genghis Khan's army entered Magog (pussia) in 1220s) through the 15th century, the Mordorian church enjoyed a favoured position...

(Magog are the race of man-eating beasts from SF TV-show Andromeda, here obviously used for Russians?)

The page should be revised, and better guarded against these attacks in future. Thanks in advance ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaPJ (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This is just some straightforward vandalism. Reverted. Nothing actionable yet, but I'll keep my eye on it. SkyWarrior 19:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Dispute about block warnings and AN/I block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is essentially a self-report:

There has been an ongoing discussion on several Wikipedia pages about the way fact that I quickly went to WP:ANI after issuing a final warning on Henia Perlman's talk page, following a pattern of adding content to The Holocaust or a few related articles that were reverted because they were not in a form ready to be posted to the article or it was not cited at all or not properly. The user has mentioned that she is challenged by some of the technical formatting in Wikipedia -- and this has been an ongoing theme, so I am posting this so that this can be sorted out.

As I understand it, the user is concerned that I issued the block report on this incident page very soon after she posted content… and just before she took me up upon my offer to format the citations. As I understand, her issue is that 1) it went very fast and 2) she would have preferred that it went to WP:Mediation, per one of her latest postings on this - item #1. She has said that she feels I should be investigated about:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

User talk:Henia Perlman#The block is a summary (with diffs) of the warnings and activity that resulted in me posting a request to block on June 19th, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Request block of User:Henia Perlman. The ongoing editing issues are discussed throughout Talk:The Holocaust, but the specific edit in question is discussed here and here, regarding the final edits: this edit (08:43, June 19, 2017 ct‎), which I reverted (09:34, June 19, 2017 ct), and this edit (10:51, June 19, 2017‎ ct), which I reverted a few minutes after it was made here (10:53, June 19, 2017 ct).

As a side note, she has not been performing edits since the 31-hour block, and is instead posting proposals for edits on the article talk page.

Thank you!–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have no idea even what's being requested here, but please, please can we not have this end again with a block of an intelligent, good-faith editor who's having trouble learning her way around? (Later: After looking around a bit more, it does seem like Henia Perlman is preoccupied with vindication in the matter of her prior block, or something, and that never ends well. Our focus here should be on getting her to realize that that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now, and she should just forget about it.) EEng 01:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s, I am absolutely not asking for a block, nor any sanction against Henia. I am doing a self-report to see if there's something I did wrong. Is self-report the wrong term? Again, it is to determine:

1. Whether I did anything wrong in the manner in which I notified her about the block and then very quickly posted the ANI after the final edit?
2. Should I have taken this to another venue instead of issuing the request to block at ANI?

It seems that she needs to have that done to move on. Any suggestions to help resolve this are greatly appreciated! I haven't been successful in my attempts to try to move this on - like this. I am stumped. I am lost. I feel bad and I don't know what to do to move this on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging a few people from the earlier thread who might be able to give Henia some helpful words: Rivertorch, Seraphim System, Mathglot. EEng 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to an editor who is having trouble learning their way around, but that isn't why this block was imposed. There was a very clear proposal under discussion at AN/I regarding a voluntary Article Ban. There has been a lot of good faith extended and assumed, but the discussion at AN/I wasn't ambiguous — the editing at the Holocaust article has been disruptive, and it is not a good article to learn on. I don't think CaroleHenson acted wrongly here. To help Henia, I will say that any discussion at AN/I is serious, and the community worked out a voluntary article ban proposal as an alternative to indefinitely blocking a new editor. We want Henia to have an opportunity to get used to how things work here, but that doesn't mean the discussion isn't serious. If an admin issues you a final warning, and there is an open discussion at AN/I about a voluntary article ban, and you agree to it, and then edit the article you will get blocked. That's how you learn. Asking for justice against our admins (who are much beloved) at AN/I usually doesn't end well, so the sooner we move on from this, the better for Henia. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, EEng.

If someone doesn't mind taking a look at the questions, that would be great. I think the issue was that she didn't feel she should be blocked for making edits that were not meant to be unhelpful and that there should be another official remedy other than moving to blocking if the edits were not meant to be disruptive.

Regarding Mediation, my understanding is that is for content disputes - to resolve disputes regarding specific language in an article... which is not the issue here.

This issue seems to fall into the category of conduct disputes - and the page discusses the use of templates (which I did) and WP:ANI. Perhaps, I could have posted a message on the ANI requesting assistance, rather than requesting a block in cases like this. It would truly be helpful to get input about whether there was another approach I could have taken. That was my intention for the posting, because I think answering the questions will help both Henia and me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't get an edit conflict and my posting was made on top of Seraphim System's comment... which appears to answer the questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much bowed out of it after Henia posted a rambling message on my talk page saying that other editors at The Holocaust "see [her] as a threat". I replied to her, offering what I hoped were helpful words. I was pretty frank, though. My advice hadn't seemed to be having a positive effect, and she had appeared to be grasping at straws since her block, distrustful of people (such as CaroleHenson) who had gone out of their way to help her and shopping around in some sort of futile quest for...I don't know what. Vindication? It didn't make sense to me, and I had begun to dread logging in for fear of finding that more drama awaited me. I really don't have anything else to offer, helpful or otherwise. Henia will either move on from her block and make a concerted effort to become a competent Wikipedia editor or she won't. Calling for investigations isn't productive. Does anyone really have time for this?

I'd like to offer a word or two to CaroleHenson, who feels bad but shouldn't. Rarely have I seen such forbearance directed toward a new user whose edits are having a disruptive effect, and CaroleHenson, you were a big part of that. You made a concerted effort to help a newbie, and when that appeared to be failing, you acted with the best interests of the project in mind. You did nothing wrong, and there's no need to second-guess yourself. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Heartfelt agreement with that word or two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you feel about all those other words? EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I was the admin who gave the 31 hour block originally to Henia regarding their editing on The Holocaust, after multiple editors, admins and non-admins, advised her to stop. I feel like a lot of editors have gone out of their way to try to help Henia, some offering mentoring which they seems to take up, but have fault with at the same time. Henia's last rather lengthy post on my talk page here: [111] brings up a number of these same concerns that CaroleHenson mentioned. Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. Carole, you've had the patience of a saint in helping her, and I don't see that you've done anything remotely wrong. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone that contributed to this issue. As I understand it, I followed the processes correctly, which means that in addition to discussion on talk pages, I properly used templates to warn about the issue on her talk page, and followed the block policy correctly. As I summarized (and no one disagreed), Mediation is for content disputes and this was a conduct dispute, so mediation is not the proper venue for these kinds of issues. To this point, I have not heard of alternative strategies.

As an FYI, I am not an administrator, but I am a seasoned editor and NewPages reviewer.

I totally agree with EEng that it's nothing anyone will care about a month from now and RickinBaltimore that Henia is an editor that I also feel will be a great help in the future with their knowledge and information, and hopefully the people they have working with them helps out. (Her latest mentor added a post several days ago to Henia on their talk page.) There are many other nice and encouraging comments that have been made and I am happy to summarize them on Henia's talk page.

EEng#s, Is this sufficient input? Is there anything else that is needed to resolve this issue?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but because of my nobly gracious bearing I'm often mistaken for one. You showed great patience in an extremely frustrating situation. While it's always possible to say, "Well, you could have done this or that as well, before going to ANI", you did nothing wrong. EEng 20:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia input and further conversation

Henia Perlman posted the following at RickinBaltimore's page:

"Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation." You wrote: "My reason for the block was that Henia was continuing to make the same edits that they were repeatedly told by multiple editors (including an admin) not to make."

Please, specify

1) "the same edits",

2) the name of the admin who repeatedly told me not to do the same edit,

3)why was I guilty of socking.

Thank You.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

So, I posted it here for continuity of discussion - and hopefully to resolve this once and for all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman:

1) "The same edits" means that you continued to add content that was not ready for the article and was not properly cited. See the warnings on your talk page, for instance.

2) Ealdgyth is an admin

3) Socking refers to WP:Sockpuppetry, which was discussed at User_talk:RickinBaltimore#Rachelle/Henia..... You used two different accounts, the Rachelle Perlman account and the Henia Perlman account after you were blocked. We've been all through that - you explained it had something to do with a computer issue - and now that you're using just one account, we're good on that count as long as you just use one account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I am asking RickinBaltimore to answer my questions.

Because of my physical disabilities, I cannot interact with everybody.

Thank you.

Cordially. Henia Perlman (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

• Henia, I want to apologize for a delay in getting back to you. Weekends are a very slow time for me on Wikipedia, as I'm busy with family stuff, and it's hard for me to jump on frequently. Carole did however summarize exactly what I was going to respond with. The block was originally for your conduct with disregarding editors asking you to use sourcing, and this was after multiple warnings and requests to not do so. As Carole stated, Ealdgyth is an admin, and they explicitly told you that you needed to work with the community on this issue. As for the multiple accounts, I was perfectly OK with your explanation on what happened, and I know you're just using this account now. I'm not going to be monitoring this or my talk page much today or tomorrow, since I'll be busy, but anyone here can assist you. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning Ricki and all,

It is very hard for me to keep up with daily/hourly comments in this site, or any other.

I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor.

I would like to focus only on the 2 incidents that directly caused the block.

It seems to me that I was specifically and immediately blocked, because

1. I didn't provide sources for Shanghai's statement, and continue to post this statement;

2. Carole mentioned Ealdgyth, an admin, in her request to block me, because Ealdgyth objected to posting, after Shangah.

RickinBaltimore, is it correct?

Thank you,

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the block was due to the repeated posting of information that was not properly sourced, and despite a number of editors asking you to please refrain from posting it until you had the discussion on the information you were posting. This was not immediate, as the issue appears to have been on going for a few weeks prior to my issuing the block on June 22nd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,

1) You are not listening or understanding - and I don't know why you need for Rick to restate, once again, what the issue is. (See his initial comment here.) The reason why you have been blocked has been stated over and over again - endlessly - including in this incident and User talk:Henia Perlman#The block. I don't know how many times you need to be told this before it's understood. See WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum.

2) It is insulting to the people that work this page and the process to say, I understand the solidarity behind Carole, a very experienced editor. You can make yourself a victim, or you can be someone who learns from your experiences.

Your inability to get that you might have done something wrong... and that it was a part of a pattern, not just the Shanghai edits raises concerns about your ability to capture key concepts here at Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, thank you for your thoughtful answer.

Can you please take out of from your archive the discussions we had about the Shanghai posts, and repost them in your talk page, as I would like to better understand what happened there?

"The incident that directly caused your block was when you went ahead and made changes to The Holocaust rather than finishing the discussions about the two ways to prevent the block on this AN/I forum."

Well Carole, I thought I would have a reasonable time to think about the 2 proposal and the block. I was not informed of a deadline, and I was waiting for one.

I see no harm in me being a slow reader, because of my physical disabilities.

I can go forward after I read again the posting about the Shanghai postings, now in your archive, and going over every disruptive post, that you took the time to mention.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and your cooperation to help me better understand.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman, All the posts that you made to my talk page are at User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 12 and User talk:CaroleHenson/Archive 13, but I don't see that the Shanghai edits were specifically discussed there.

All the information specific to the block is at User talk:Henia Perlman#The block, including the two sections of Talk:The Holocaust that discussed your final edits. There were also the final and "only" warnings posted to your talk page.

There was never an issue about you taking more time to review the proposals - and you never asked for time to consider the proposals. This had nothing to do with timing. You were blocked for additional improper edits. See [112].

I am done with this issue, Henia. If you continue to talk about how I improperly blocked you, I will refer to the summary on your talk page and this ANI discussion. Other than that, I am done and see no use in my continuing to repeat myself with ZERO impact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Folks, I hate to be ants at a picnic – especially since when issues with this user first popped up, everyone agreed that, aside from some problems, she was a good faith editor with a lot to offer Wikipedia – but when I looked through Henia Perlman's talk page commentary at that time, I got the distinct impression that this could be pretty sophisticated trolling, as opposed to a newbie user lost in the maze of Wikipedia. I would ask that someone who hasn't looked into this before take a closer look with that in mind, because I'm far from convinced that the editor is what she claims to be. But then, I may just be overly suspicious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I can see how you might think that. Or, a case of WP:NOTGETTINGIT / WP:CIR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Carole, to your two questions at the outset above: (I am responding as an involved non-admin)

1. No, nothing wrong in the manner which you notified HP of the block.
2. No. What other venue has juridiction and actionability to block someone, if not ANI? Bringing an issue here is not equivalent to issuing a block; you merely raised the question. You could have been unanimously shouted down by a tsunami of admins, had that been appropriate, but instead a block was issued. This was the right venue. (As a postscript, Henia's edit pattern was such that a 31-hour block wasn't even sure to get noticed, and as I recall, she later said it had expired before she realized it had been in effect.)

Just a few observations in order to try to bring anyone encountering this for the first time up to speed quickly. I have offered suggestions to Henia in the past which I hope were helpful, as numerous other editors have. At the same time I tried to offer some some non-sugar coated reality-checks that I realized might sound harsh to her but which I thought would be beneficial in helping her avoid an impending block which I saw coming clear as day, by contrasting her expertise in one area (Holocaust studies) with her neophyte status in another (Wikipedia). I tried to explain how others might see her activities at WP as being disruptive in a way that she might not understand and could easily interpret as ganging up on her or bullying, although that was certainly not the case. Far from being the latter, Henia is in my experience the editor who has received the most forbearance and largest number of offers of help of any editor that I have seen. Imho her responses have been sporadic and unpredictable, ranging from obsequious gratitude to dark innuendo of conspiracy (both of which I've been on the receiving end of), with a dash of mentor-[s]hopping without a clear rudder being established anywhere, nor even an anchor, so she ends up blown about by the winds or whatever the last breeze some editor or admin blew her way. My working theory up till now has been that she is what she appears to be, a Holocaust expert, with some issues of being frazzled by technology and computers, not to mention Wikipedia's set of policies and guidelines which takes a while to negotiate, and perhaps also her age (by her own say-so) and perhaps also by other personal issues that generally make things even harder for her. I have to admit not having considered Beyond My Ken's theory up till now, and reading it gave me a jolt, and now I can't "unthink" it, and don't know what to think now. I still believe it's probably CIR and a steep learning curve, but in the end as one frustrated editor remarked after giving up trying to help, (paraphrasing from memory): "In the end, it doesn't matter what the reason for the problem is."

I think Carole raised the issue here at ANI pointing at herself out of an abundance of caution in an attempt to be more than fair to an editor who had discussed raising "investigations" (here and here) into Carole's activities and those of other editors interacting with her (how I escaped that list I'll never know) and who may be too new here and thus unfamiliar with the rules and conventions at ANI to raise an issue herself. Having said that, if Henia is serious about having various editors investigated, it is for her to say whether Carole's formulation of the issue represents her concerns, whether she (Henia) wishes to continue on with this statement of it or take it up some other way. As far as I'm concerned, given Carole's statement of the issue at top of section, there's nothing remotely to be reproached here.

(Note: Pinging Ealdgyth who has been mentioned in this thread, but not notified I believe.) Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional background and weighing-in on the topic. The thing is: the nature of her edits were abundantly clear. 1) She continued to be warned about adding content that was not properly cited (on French and English Wikipedia) and was given offers to help format the citations, and 2) posted content that was not ready or appropriate for the article: a) too much detail for an overview article, b) fringe theories, c) continuing to add content that was discussed as problematic on the article talk page - or continuing to question why it was problematic, and d) adding content that was not ready because it was poorly constructed / edited (and received offers to work on this by others, which she ignored). Based upon previous comments, she seems to think that other editors should be cleaning up her edits. The fact that she cannot see that these are issues means to me that if she hadn't been blocked, she'd still be trying to make problematic edits. In addition, she is not understanding very clear points that have been made to her repeatedly at Talk:The Holocaust. If she doesn't like an answer, she has a habit of asking the question over and over again... on the article talk page or by posting messages on multiple user's talk pages to the point that users that once helped her are now ignoring her.

I have also seen that she does shop for someone to adopt or mentor her... but once someone agrees to help, it seems that their advice or suggestions are completely ignored. She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page.

I have been the eternal optimist, thinking that it just needed to be explained differently and she'd get it... but she's not getting it, and doesn't want to get it... whether it's due to trolling or CIR. If it's CIR, I feel really bad for her. If she's trolling, she has been highly effective at being disruptive and must be laughing at us quite a bit. Whatever the cause, though, this has been disruptive, time-consuming, and exhausting and, based upon her endless questioning why she was blocked, even now, I don't see an inkling that she's open to self-reflection.

I don't know how we prove trolling, but since she has stated herself that she has competence issues regarding Wikipedia (most recently here and here) + isn't working with her mentor, can we come up with a solution to resolve this (e.g., topic ban for The Holocaust, warning about needing to actively work with a mentor, warning about WP:LISTENING, other)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all

I don't want anymore to investigate Carole's actions.

Carole, you made a great impact.

I have been reading all your links, and those by Simon, Mathglot, Ealdgyth and others.

Carole, I am getting it.

And you noticed: I am not editing.

My only goal: I do want to help improving content, like all of us.

Carole, sorry:

I posted all the citations for you to format about Shanghai, in Talk page of Holocaust, and not at your talk user page.

I wanted to provide Ealdgyth the citations.

Mathglot:

I have read very carefully all your thoughtful postings.

I admit: I should have waited before posting about Shanghai, without citations.

"b) fringe theories"

I gave what I believed to be reliable sources to my proposal for new lead:

ushmm, Elie Wiesel, Berenbaus and others.

Holocaust history is very complex, and has been the subject of many controversies.

Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years.

I have been keeping up with that.

It has been very interesting.

"She has not responded to comments and suggestions from her most recent mentor, ONUnicorn, on their talk page."

I have responded.

I don't laugh at anybody.

Mathglot and others: I cannot respond to all your thoughtful postings.

I can read and type only during a certain amount of time.

I am still traveling.

I do understand the frustrations that I have caused.

I apologize for that.

Thank you all.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I continued reading articles in wiki, and those relevant to editors who are experts.

Mathglot, I found out that the lead in 2004 was: The word Holocaust (Greek, "a completely (holos) burnt (kaustos) sacrificial offering") was introduced in the late 20th century to refer to the attempt of Nazi-ruled Germany to exterminate those groups of people it found "undesirable".

I printed the 51 pages of the current Holocaust article, and read them.

I don't have the time and physical endurance to be involved.

Be well.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I struck out the request for a warning / other.–CaroleHenson (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia, if you're monitoring this, I have a specific question for you regarding Historiography of Holocaust has been evolving very fast in the USA, especially in the last five years. Please see your Talk page. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Henia's response to "Aspersion"

I. It seems to me that Carole shouldn't have put a request to "block{ed} for additional improper edits" - "final edits" (Shanghai and lead).

1. First final additional improper edit: 14:43, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman. (→‎Other occupied countries: Jews in Shanghai): In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe… the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, who left Shanghai after 1945.

14:53, 19 June, in the article talk page, I posted: I will also appreciate help in putting template for links (this time I couldn't do it!): In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, …14:53, 19 June 2017

15:34, 19 June 2017‎ CaroleHenson ‎(Reverted 1 edit by Henia Perlman (talk): Addition of uncited content.

CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 19 June: I reverted the edit where you added uncited content. … I am not posting a request to block you because you have continued to ignore wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the warnings you have received.

Henia Perlman (talk) 16:14, 19 June: So sorry! 1. I pasted the wrong post without citations, and I have to find the correct one, because I have always posted with citation (temperature here was 105!). I am looking in my comuter for the posting on Shanghai with citations, as I have done it in the past. 2. I did ask to discuss with me comments, before reverting my post.

Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 19 June: I would have reverted your addition not only for the for the lack of citations, but also the formatting issues and the tone of the addition. We cannot call someone a butcher without a source. Nor is calling someone that encyclopedic tone. Nor do we need a paragraph on the Shanghai situation in an overview article on the entire Holocaust, so it had WP:UNDUE issues.

CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 19 June: Would you please post what you want to add here, rather than posting it to the article and I will work on getting it ready? Please.

16:51, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience)

16:53, 19 June 2017‎ CaroleHenson (talk | (Reverted 1 edit by Henia Perlman (talk): Did not address issues raised on talk page by two people.

Henia's comment: After I added a citation, Carole is again reverting me, but now, because of two people and comment of undue weight – so issue of content.

CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2017 Block's request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#No_further_response_to_the_2_options.2C_went_ahead_and_edited_again: "This user, who says that she has been a teacher for more than 20 years (Carole does not specify that I have taught the Holocaust course in academic setting). … She had been given warnings about not adding unhelpful or uncited content and continues to make edits after a final warning. The last edit was this edit" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=786463732&oldid=786452371

But, in "this edit", Henia did put one citation : Revision as of 16:51, 19 June 2017 Henia Perlman (talk | contribs) (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience.

"after receving comments from here": Ealdgyth 16:37, 19 June 2017: I would have reverted your addition not only for the for the lack of citations, but also the formatting issues and the tone of the addition. … Nor do we need a paragraph on the Shanghai situation in an overview article on the entire Holocaust, so it had WP:UNDUE.

So, 23 minutes after Ealdgyth's content comments, 9 minutes after my Shanghai edit with one citation, and 7 minutes after Carole reverted me because of issue of content raised by Ealdgyth, Carole put a request to block me because of Shanghai without quotation.

And, Ealdgyth did later decided that Shanghai does indeed have weight, and added a Shanghai statement with one citation like I did: 18:28, 20 June 2017‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Germany's allies: add data and source): Jews in Shanghai were confined, but despite German pressure, they were not killed.[131] So it was ok that Henia added Shanghai with one citation.

"and here: Revision as of 16:39, 19 June 2017 (edituCaroleHenson (talk | contribs)

(→‎Shanghai without citations: I have asked you to work with me regarding making sure that the content is "article ready" due to your history of edits and the fact that you have received so many warnings about your edits. I am trying to keep you from being blocked. Would you please post what you want to add here, rather than posting it to the article and I will work on getting it ready? Please.

At 16:51 Henia added one citation, adding that she will post more.

Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 19 June 20. Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting: In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.[1] [2] After the Wannsee conference, Hitler’s Germany sent SS-Colonel Joseph Meisinger, the “Butcher of Warsaw to Shanghai, Norman Goda The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 – 1945 Pearson, 2013 p. 267. But, the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust 89 who left Shanghai after 1945. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206019.pdf

2. Shanghai is not undue weight and sources mention it even in overview. Thank you Carole!

CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 19 June: Henia, I have been offering to format your citations for quite some time. You pushed ahead after the final warning and the messages here on the talk page. As you likely saw on your talk page, I have submitted a request to block your account.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Shanghai_without_citations)

But, 1) I did post with one citation, like Ealdgyth: "16:51, 19 June 2017‎ Henia Perlman (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Shanghai: I added one citation - looking for the others in my computer. Thank you for your patience)"; 2) Carole mentions the request five minutes after I provided more citation as promised at 16:51; and 3) Carole reverted me a second time because issue of content, and not issue of citation.

The facts speak for themselves.

I edited the Shanghai statement with one citation, and it was not undue weight.

I can also refute other examples mentioned by Carole.

I strongly suggest that administrators consider putting a deadline for proposals and appeal to block, because some people do not log everyday.

I welcome your comments.

It may take me time to answer.

Thank you for your attention.

Henia Perlman (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Admin help please

This posting is ten days old. Henia said that she was dropping the protest of the block in this edit on July 11 and is now essentially restating the issues of the block and my summary of the timing of the final edits (from the initial post) as if that's a reason why she shouldn't have been blocked.

Is there any way we can resolve this? I know that it's a long posting at this point, but it would be nice to be able to close this out.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As has been commented many times in the past, there comes a point when extreme issues of incompetence become indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. Numerous editors have expressed the opinion that Henia has a lot to offer Wikipedia, but she has, unfortunately, shown absolutely no ability or willingness to understand how we do things. I'm afraid that the only answer is an indef block, which can be lifted once she exhibits the capacity for editing here without causing continuing problems. Therefore, reluctantly: Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

User:Henia Perlman should be indefinitely blocked from editing until she is able to convincingly display her willingness and ability to abide by Wikipedia's processes and procedures and become a net positive to the project.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe that WP:CANVASSING has any application cross-Wiki, but I will note that on French Wikipedia Henia Perlman has summarized (incorrectly, I believe) the latest incident and has requested help there with her troubles here. [113]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support, and assume that this would apply to her alternative account, User:Rachelle Perlman (See [114], [115]).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the block is intended for the person and not for the specific account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I displayed my willingness and ability to abide by Wikipedia's processes and procedures.

I didn't edit, as per the proposal.

The matter of investigating Carole Henson about the block is closed.

I just wanted to address the issue of "Aspersions".

What I did in French wiki was a long time ago, and I just wanted to understand matter.

You can archive this issue, as I am dropping any request for investigation.

Thank you.

Cordially.

Henia Perlman (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You said a day or so ago that you were dropping the matter, and you lied about that that turned out not to be the case, because you came back and tried to re-open it. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of faith in your statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Distractive side issue. Adjustment made in comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Beyond My Ken: Whoa. Easy there, pardner. Have you ever said you were going to back away from something and then changed your mind? If so, did somebody accuse you of lying about it? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC) If you change your mind, then you say "I've changed my mind." If you just come back and pursue the matter, without preamble or explanation, that's a different thing entirely. Henia does a lot of explaining ("I'm traveling", "I'm unwell", etc.), so she certainly knows how to do that, but she didn't in this case, she just hauled anchor and steamed back into the channel after assuring everyone she had no intention of doing so. I don't know about where you come from, but where I am, that's called "lying". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I don't care to disclose where I come from, but the climate is moderate, the people are fairly laid back, and we generally call that "oversight". At worst. She might also have different ideas about the proper protocol in that situation. I don't think it's covered in Wikipedia guidelines. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Where you come from sounds lovely, but, after all, one can be too laid back. Henia's history points towards a kind of passive-aggressive obstinacy, if not outright trolling (I can no longer distinguish them in her case) and a tendency to play on people's sympathy through her description of herself as a frail, sickly, travelling, ex-academic just trying to do the right thing for Holocaust studies, but bewildered by all the folderol connected with editing Wikipedia. Any time anyone tries to pin her down, she falls back on her mantra ("I'm ill", "I'm travelling"), and backs off, to the point that even if everything she says about herself is true she's not well-suited to edit here, especially since she can't seem to pick up the thread of how to do things. There's a lot here that just doesn't quite gel for me, but I've extended just about all the AGF I have at this point, and I'm completely out of sympathy - hence my evaluation of her unexplained about-face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yep, there is a lot of frustrating, time-consuming, exasperating backstory that involves a number of experienced editors who tried to help her.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Don't misunderstand me, I'm not here supporting Henia Perlman in this matter. I don't know enough about it to have an opinion one way or the other. I only objected to the word "lied" above, and I stand by that objection. And that's about all I have to say about it. (That is, I think that's all. If I decide to say more later, even if I fail to begin with the words, "I changed my mind", please don't accuse me of lying!) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Gotcha. I see your point. FWIW, I took it as a lie, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Certainly, we all change our minds. I mean, look at this, where when it was pointed out to me that my !vote in an RfC contradicted an opinion I expressed 7 years ago, I took stock of the matter, had a serious re-think, and came up with a third opinion that was different from the other two - but I made it clear that it was a re-evaluation on my part, I didn't just reverse my stance from a few days before without any explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This makes me very sad, but it looks as if this person is either unwilling or unable to adapt to the collegial, collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia. I feel almost guilty—not for trying to help her but for urging others to be patient with her when our patience has been rewarded by passive-aggressive conduct and continued disruption in one form or another. This has been an enormous distraction to several editors, and it needs to stop now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Counter-proposal withdrawn
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment and (Counter-proposal): Just to keep the facts straight, Beyond My Ken's assertion above that Henia "summarized" (incorrectly or not) "the latest incident" is incorrect; the supplied link points to a June 22 edit of hers. Henia's claim that what she "did in French wiki was a long time ago" is correct, at least wrt to BMK's link. That said, I largely agree with the comments of Carole, BMK, Rivertorch (and others in other venues), and I also believe some kind of block is warranted. I'm not well-versed in matters of block lengths, but can someone explain to me why we go from a 31-hour block, to indef? Seems to me in other discussions about blocking other users for other reasons, there was usually a ramp-up of increasing lengths of blocks, ending in an indef if they didn't come around. But maybe, probably even, I don't understand how this all works exactly. Nevertheless, I'd like to put in my: Counter-proposal: Can we try a 1-month or 3-month block, while still allowing Henia access to her Talk page? How exactly would it hurt the project if this was implemented, rather than an indef? And Henia, if you're monitoring, please don't see this as dividing editors here into two camps of your "friends" and "enemies". Everybody here is just trying to do what's right for the encyclopedia. I'm not your "friend" because of the counter-proposal, and others are not "your enemies" for seeking an indefinite block; they are doing that only for the purposes of protecting the encyclopedia. In my opinion, your best bet now, if you wish to continue to contribute here, is to not argue about anything that happened in the past, nor with anything you disagree with here in this thread. Just let it slide, and listen. If you end up receiving a time-limited block, don't fight it, accept it graciously, and concentrate on showing on your talk page how you will change in the future. If allowed Talk page access, don't say a word about the Holocaust during your block, but think about how you're going to return here without making the same mistakes. Honestly, I just don't know if you're capable of doing that, but I hope so. I still think you could be an asset to the encyclopedia, but all this Sturm und Drang has to stop right now, and you need to show you can take suggestions, even if you don't agree, and act on them. I'm not an admin, and others here are much more experienced than me in these things, so we'll see what happens. But really, above all, stop the argumentation, and just listen, and try to learn. That's my best advice to you at this point. Mathglot (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Mathglot: Yes, blocks do often ramp up, but Henia's initial block was for a specific incident. If there was another specific incident, one would expect the next block to be a ramp-up, but this proposal is not about a specific incident, it's about the entire corpus of Henia's editing here since she started, which seemed to me to be deserving of an indefinite block -- which is not an infinite block, you realize, it can be lifted whenever Henia is able to make a convincing case for that to happen. With the indefinite block, the ball lies in her court to take positive action. With another timed block, she simply waits for it to be over. We'll see what happens, but my experience is that someone coming in with a counter-proposal simply muddies the waters and very often leads to no sanction at all -- but maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe folks agree with you that a short, timed block is better. I just don't see what it's meant to accomplish. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I see what you mean, thanks for that explanation. As far as what it is meant to accomplish: a couple of things. If I'm not mistaken, the 31-hour block was completely missed by HP as she didn't even try to log in during that period. So, one intent of a longer block would be a serious wake-up call that can't be ignored. I do realize that indef is not infinite, but other than appealing an indef, what can she do, really? In fact, with an indef, she might be tempted to start appealing immediately, which would just exhaust everybody, I fear. With a 3-month block, and a friendly word to just wait it out and perhaps to reflect on her TP what to do differently this time around, she wouldn't have to resort to appealing right away but could focus on what happens in 3 months, and perhaps addres that on her TP. At that point, if nothing's changed upon her return, well, we know where to go from there. And to be very clear, I'm not arguing for no sanction at all, I think that would be a mistake. It's clear everybody is exhausted, me included, but a three month block will solve that problem for all of us who tried to help her and let us get on with business, no? I hope this answers your question about what it is meant to accomplish. Mathglot (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Mathglot, The more I think of the suggestion, the more that I think that Wikipedia can be a challenging environment - it requires using Wiki-formatting, writing from an encyclopedic mindset versus expressing a particular/specific point of view, collaboration on article talk pages, learning and following Wikipedia guidelines, etc. All of these have shown to be challenging, and I think it's unfair to Henia and the community to continue to try. (As has been said several times, editors have found that Henia has had more guidance, from more people, than they have seen for any other newcomer.) My hope is that she finds the right place to contribute based upon her skills and experience - perhaps contributing to a blog[116], writing or contributing to publications, helping to develop educational material for one of the Holocaust musuems, offering editorial input for writers or publications, volunteering to create material for the school(s) she worked at previously, etc. There are many ways that she might be able to be able to add value, and I deeply and sincerely hope that she finds the right niche for herself.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Carole, that's a good response, and I don't have a good answer to it. You are probably right. Mathglot (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Withdrawing previous counter-proposal. This makes me really sad, but I've been persuaded by CaroleHenson and Beyond My Ken. Sigh. I really had hoped it wouldn't come to this. Darn. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Reluctantly. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this either, but I don't think that Wikipedia is right for her at least at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• BLOCKED There is a clear consensus here that this is an issue of both competency and WP:IDHT. I've read the numerous talk page discussions and found evidence for: patient explanations to Henia Perlman about Wikipedia guidelines, AGF actions of editors, and sincere attempts at mentorship. Despite this, Henia Perlman persisted in disruptive and contradictory behavior. (e.g., seeking than refusing mentorship, re-opening of old discussions on numerous pages, acceptance of help alternating with accusations of unfairness, etc.) Additionally, their sole subject of concern (The Holocaust) is on Wikipedia’s list of vital subjects which requires editing without controversy or disruption. I have indefinitely blocked User:Henia Perlman (and the alternative account User:Rachelle Perlman per consensus opinion. The Wikipedia:Standard offer will be available in six months should they desire. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sad it's come to this, but at some point competance becomes an issue. Sorry I didn't get a chance to weigh in, as I've been either sick or painting rooms the last week. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know what you mean. Even though I'm still not personally certain about what was going on (CIR or trolling), the outcome didn't make me feel good, it was simply the only solution that seemed viable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal Threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Matthewtsweetman has made legal threats asking for publicly referenced material to be removed, see Talk:Jerome Lyle Rappaport NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 04:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Absolutely a legal threat, block clearly needed. EEng 04:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendentious editing by IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 68.234.100.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I have already tried to inform this user that original research is not acceptable in general, let alone when it is blatantly incorrect, after I noticed this unsourced, opiniated addition and this comment not directly related to improving the article. Today, they proceeded to add an even more ill-informed addition that was also unsourced. When I warned them again, they proceeded to make this obviously WP:POINTy edit. This has been going on for a while. I am requesting at least a formal warning by an admin, and ideally a block, since they clearly are not willing or able to follow our verifiability policy. At the least, I'm requesting help, as I am aware that discretionary sanctions are authorized for the subject of climate change.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The user is just blanking their talk page and not responding, and is apparently not here to collaboratively build an Internet encyclopedia. At a certain point it's just vandalism and should be reported accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nuke all pages created by 16pedia2

Hello can you please delete all hoaxes on User:16pedia2 subpages for this can you help me to delete all hoaxes on 16pedia2 subpages for now because it is possible to speedy delete all hoaxes for now? --66.87.68.167 (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I'm going to need more than just a request. Can I have some background information? I see a list of subpages here - I'm happy to help once I understand what the situation is :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly offensive remarks by 101.167.39.149

User:101.167.39.149 has been leaving a fair number of comments on talk pages and edits in articles that have an air of anti-semitism. There is a fair amount of anti-semitic activity coming from this account between the conversation over at Talk:Chris Cornell and that at Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers this user seems to have a fascination with Judaism as some sort of denigrating mark. Here are links to some of the incidents: Old revision of Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers, Old revision of Talk:List of Italian-American entertainers, Old revision of Talk:Chris Cornell, and Old revision of Talk:Christiana Capotondi. Snood1205 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems pretty much WP:NOTHERE, but I don't know how helpful ip blocks are at stopping this kind of thing Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely on-going uncivil behavior and the engagement in personal attacks toward other users (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8), as well as disruptive editing on articles involving people's Jewish heritage. The IP has repeatedly engaged in removing referenced content (1, 2) and replacing it with unreferenced or poorly referenced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). I've blocked the IP address for two weeks due to the history, length, severity, and rate of the disruption, as well as the repeated warnings that were ignored. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Emails from blocked sock puppets

Hi, I'm occasionally getting emails from users that I never interacted with, usually pointing me to a discussion or an edit. The account is usually blocked for being a sock puppet. I presume this editor saw some of my other edits/discussions and assumes that I would represent their POV in the matter they are canvassing me into, thus acting as their meat puppet. If this is done to me, presumably it is done to other editors as well. Why at all is there a possibility for a permanently blocked account to send emails ? “WarKosign” 19:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Socks aren't "permanently" blocked, although it may seem to turn out that way in the case of some. In any event, e-mail access is not disabled by default when an account is blocked. If you are being harassed, you'll need to disclose who and the contents of the e-mail. If for some reason the content is private (to you, not to the sender), you can forward the material to an administrator, perhaps the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Last email I got was from user:AmirSurfLera, this is the content:

Don't you think this is WP:Undue weight? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&type=revision&diff=790388449&oldid=789898286

Usually it's just 1-2 emails from each such account. Tracking who blocked each email sender is more bothersome than the emails themselves. I can handle a handful of such emails in a year, the problem is that such behavior can be practiced at all while it's so easy to prevent.

As long as the user's page says that it's permanently blocked, what's the purpose of leaving email access ? If the purpose is to be able to appeal, only email access to admins is needed, allowing emailing other editors seems like an invitation for canvassing. “WarKosign” 21:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why should tracking be hard? At the bottom of the e-mail it tells you who the user is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You wrote I should contact the admin who blocked the account. I would need to extract username from the email, open the user's page, see the block notice, go to the blocker's page, put a notice. The admin would need to look the user up, try to remember what the situation was - sometimes over a year ago - and consider blocking email access. All of this for one or two emails. Not worth the bother. “WarKosign” 07:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

All users have the option, under Preferences/EMail Options to uncheck the box "Enable email from other users". Nobody is required to enable emails. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but if a blocked user is blatantly abusing his ability to email others - I'm for disabling it (provided that it's true and ongoing, of course). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• No user's page says that it's permanently blocked, just indefinite, which is not the same thing. And it's almost always open to appeal - the vast majority of indef blocked users do not abuse the email facility, and it is a legitimate way to appeal (and there's no technical way to restrict email access to emailing admins only). If a blocked user abuses the email facility, then yes, we do remove their access to it once they are identified, but the recipient of such an email has to start the process. Identifying the user who sent an email and the admin who blocked them is trivially easy, and we are not going to change Wikipedia policy and revoke email access as standard just because a recipient can't be bothered to perform such a simple task - and this is not the right forum to try to change Wikipedia policy anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned getting emails from multiple users who have been blocked as socks. Are they members of the same sock farm? Is this a person you had corresponded with before? If the emails are harassing, you could forward them to the functionaries or arbcom lists. However, not to spill any WP:BEANS, but - it's not entirely possible to prevent unwanted emails unless you just disable your email altogether. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

For some of them there was a link to an SPI with a long list of socks, a few of them I saw around. For some of them, like the last one, there is no link to SPI so I can't tell. All the suggested edits/discussions are in the same area of interest, which is the area where I usually edit. I presume the puppet master(s) believes that I share their POV and am likely to act upon their suggestions in the way they intent, so they must have seen me around. If someone wants to look into it, I can compile a complete list of these emails.

Each email by itself is not harassing, what bothers me is the idea that blocked sockpupets use email to operate meatpuppets.“WarKosign” 12:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No one else has mentioned that they get this. What attracts them to you? Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Victim blaming ? In case you have a doubt - no, I don't have a "please email me for free meatpuppet services" on my user page. “WarKosign” 22:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Victim blaming? Not sure why you think that? Doubt - why would you think I doubt anything? I was just thinking that if you get these and others don't, that there's a reason. So if we can figure out the reason, maybe it's easier to deal with. So what attracts them to you - is it something here, or something out in the real world? Nfitz (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually like posting here, but I would like to give a quick synopsis of this thread as I see it. A user who is being harassed by a blocked user(s) over email is here asking if something can be done to stop that. The answer, of course, is yes, though more information is needed to initiate the specific technical actions that would allow for that. Instead of getting that one-sentence worth of critical information, the requestee has instead been bombarded by the terminology police and been asked to check his/her own behaviour to see if they are doing anything that would attract such abuse. I would argue that both such comments aren't useful, or relevant to the request at hand. As someone who has experienced email-related abuse myself, I can tell you that it can randomly happen to those who respond to vandalism and spam. If I were asking the same question, I would be pretty annoyed and perplexed by some of the answers given here. Hopefully WarKosign can glean the useful information out of this thread and move forward with it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem is the user didn't just ask what can be done about it. They asked why users who are permanently blocked can send emails. They didn't just ask once but twice, even after it had already been explained to them why this was the case. It's not "terminology police" to explain that this is a fundamental misunderstanding as editors are not permanently blocked and so by default can send emails while blocked. If the editor didn't want an answer to this question, they shouldn't have asked about it two times. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP Violations by Liberty7777

I noticed this on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#James White (theologian).

User:Liberty7777 has been inserting material into the BLP at James White (theologian) with citations to youtube, facebook, jihadwatch.org, conservativereview.com, etc. Using the Jihad Watch source appears to be a BLP violation, and the conservative review page does not appear to mention James White. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

...and he has kept doing it, after getting his ANI notice and Notice of discretionary sanctions.[117][118] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the edits made by Liberty7777 have been disruptive and highly problematic. Since no edits have occurred since July 12 (it is now July 16), administrative action doesn't appear justified at this time. However, I will note that any further disruption by this user on James White (theologian) will be grounds for sanctions and/or an arbitration enforcement request being filed, and without further warning or notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss concerns and refusal to properly source blps

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

I came across Durneydiaz's edits while working on the New Page Patrol. I was concerned that Durneydiaz was repeatedly creating articles on living people which had no references, just external links, such as [119]. There were many examples. I also came across a page on New Page Patrol that was completely blank. There are 337 messages on Durneydiaz's talk page, including mentioning a 2011 ANI and most of the messages are about referencing concerns, and over many years. After taking advice from other members of NPP, I moved the blps with no clear refs (although some had links in an 'external links' section which didn't mention if they were used as sources for the article) to draftspace and sent talk page messages trying to engage Durneydiaz in a discussion and advising not to move the articles back to mainspace until they had inline citations. Instead, Durneydiaz ignored my messages at User talk:Durneydiaz and instead starting editwarring by moving the articles back into mainspace without any references (some external links, exactly as before). I would really just like Durneydiaz to discuss the issues, and start inline citations for blps, especially as Durneydiaz creates many. According to the talk page, these exact issues have been raised with this editor for more than 7 years with no changes. Matías Fissore is a typical example - it wouldn't take long for the creator to format and refernce this properly, but it would be very difficult for anyone else. 21:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs)

• (Non-administrator comment) The talk page (User talk:Durneydiaz) is filled with CSD-notices. Kleuske (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Try looking for sources for these BLPs. If you find them, add them to the articles and problem solved. If you can't find any then AfD them and let the process take care of the rest. If he starts disrupting that process we'll have to deal with that as the problem arises. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Basalisk, adding sources is a good approach, but Durneydiaz has created 1605 articles and more by the day. I wouldn't be able to deal with such a big issue, plus most sources would be in other languages. I added 'blpsources' and 'inline' tags to some, such as [120] here on Maximiliano Sigales which Durneydiaz removed twice yesterday, although did nothing to resolve the issue. I see no sign Durneydiaz will stop. And the nearly 400 messages on the talk page, mainly on the same issue, seem not to have been responded to at all, not one. I also think WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP would be quoted repeatedly at me if I took them to AfD. Boleyn (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• How long have I been saying we should just drop all coverage of footy players? EEng 03:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

and K-pop and MMA and... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

...and beauty pageants and music genres and pornstars and Ru Paul. Yes. Not worth it. Oh yeah: "professional" wrestling. And video games. EEng 04:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What about the champion Cristiano Ronaldo? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Basalisk: That's well and good to a point, but NPP is overwhelmed because of articles like this, and the backlog on "pages needing work" is out of control. I encountered this individual last year over an unsourced BLP and too time out to write a polite & detailed message explaining how to cite, why to do so, the advantages of using draft space, etc. I am FAR from the only person so have done so, but he simply ignores us all and continues, creating more extra work for everyone. As of today's newsletter the new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. If we stop to find references and add them not from someone new who doesn't know better or doesn't know how, but from a serial offender who sometimes does it multiple times in a day, and is only one of many such offenders, what're the chances we ever catch up? This is someone abusing the system to do things badly in hopes that "someone else will do the work." I'm not arguing that he be banned or blocked, but that someone at admin level impress upon him what we've all been trying to say only to be ignored or reverted. JamesG5 (talk) 10:44 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I agree, JamesG5, there have also been concerns raised several times as to whether all the articles being created are notable, so that would be a lot of work for another editor, that would possibly be a complete waste of time. With this editor often creating several articles a day, I would have to spend hours a day on these articles. It would also encourage them to write even more. I really just want them to stop writing articles like this, preferably just taking a complete break from writing new articles for a while, and not removing clearly applicable inline tags. Some communication would be helpful too. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Fastily, Dennis Brown and Sphilbrick since these admins have dealt with User:Durneydiaz in the past. Unless we can persuade Durneydiaz to change their approach it may be time for admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It needs to be made clear that creating many BLPs without actual reliable sources is unacceptable and puts a load on the rest of us. My recollection is that there is a comprehension concern here, possible CIR. Can't remember if I've linked WP:Communication is required to them or not before, but they need to read it. They have exactly zero article talk edits, and zero editor talk edits except for removing templates from their own talk page in 2010. Communication is non-existent, even with three blocks. Two blocks were reduced without any input from them, so WP:ROPE isn't working. In previous cases like this, the only thing that has gotten someone to TALK is to indef block until they do, then any other issue they may have becomes more obvious by their responses. Strong medicine, but we don't have a lot of tools for cases like this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that link before, but I would draw Durneydiaz's attention to it: If you are getting multiple complaints on your talk page or on an article talk page about your editing, you are expected to either stop the action that is causing the complaints, or discuss it with the community of editors at the appropriate venue. This could be a formal noticeboard, an article talk page, or on your talk page. Ignoring the complaints is not an option. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I wrote it two years ago specifically for cases like this, so it is still fairly new. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block. They are quite simply taking up more time than the value of their BLP-violating contributions are worth. If the editor had not edited their talk page at all I would be willing to assume AGF and that they didn't understand how talk pages work but in this case their reverts of warnings and removal of personalized notes that new page patrollers took time to write out for them show clearly that their outlook is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment As a bit of background, I spend a fair amount of time at OTRS, and deal with a lot of people who are unhappy about an article being deleted on notability grounds. There are a fair number of people with some decent accomplishments who don't quite meet WP:N. We don't have a space problem. While I'm far from ready to open up to any article on any subject, I would be supportive of a move to weaken the notability hurdle. That said, this is not the place to propose such a change; I'm simply pointing out my mindset. While I'd like to make it easier for subjects to be included, I'd like to see us tougher on requiring sources. We sort of have a policy that a BLP has to have a source. I'm sympathetic to NPP being overwhelmed. If we believe that a BLP needs to have at least one independent, published reliable source, why can't we simply declare that an article in mainspace (not draft space or user sub page) can be immediately deleted and any editor who creates three such articles after being warned can be blocked. A draft or user sub page isn't in violation until it is submitted for review. If an editor submits a page for review without a valid source it counts toward three strikes and you're out. Not out forever, maybe a two week block. If the community doesn't feel comfortable applying these rules in general, can we at least agree to apply them to the specific editor. If so, I'd set the counted zero and not block until three more failed attempts.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That is creating new policy and ANI isn't the place. Even if we could, this person has never communicated. Ever. If you can't get them to agree to something, it is moot. Like I said, TWO of their blocks were reduced in length without them saying a word. (one of those was mine, and I was talking into stepping back and allowing the 1 week block to be reduced). Allowing them to not communicate has gotten us exactly no where except a metric tonne of unsourced articles. I don't think you can compromise with someone who won't talk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block based on their editing since this ANI was initiated. This includes:
• Continued refusal to communicate, despite being asked by several editors here and on their talk page. I didn't even find any edit summaries.
• Taking the articles I'd moved to draftspace, and moving them back to mainspace with no attempt to fix the issues (which probably wouldn't even have taken them long), e.g. [121]
• As I didn't want to edit war by moving them back to draftspace, I added {inline} and {blpsources} tags to some of the articles moved back. 190.161.34.95 is an IP who has edited only over the last couple of days, and only on the 3 articles Durneydiaz has moved back from draftspace to mainspace, and only to remove the tags I applied, repeatedly. I'm calling WP:DUCK. After editwarring on the tags several times, the IP then added one inline source [122], which is a positive step, but that is not sufficient for a blp and the IP has continued edit warring to remove the tags on Facundo Barcelo, Maximiliano Sigales and Matías Fissore.

I see no signs this is an editor who is going to respond to anything less than a block, and I don't know if a ban on creating new pages until they communicate is possible, but I would certainly advise Durneydiaz to stop creating new pages. Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. In the name of progress, and since this is an ongoing problem, I have blocked the account indefinitely. Given that prior fixed-duration blocks have had no impact on the deafening silence from this account, I don't see any sense in another fixed-term block. This is the only option we have left so let's at least see if it makes a difference. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

97.98.86.66 reinserting same content in multiple article, editwarring

• 97.98.86.66 (talk · contribs)
• Readds content multiple times [123][124][125][126][127][[128][129][[130][131][132]
• Brags about evasion of ip blocks [133]

Darmokand (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Would suggest an IP block.Casprings (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Would also suggest protecting the related articles: Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat_Akhmetshin. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• If it came to a IP block, temp PP might be needed on Rinat Akhmetshin,Natalia Veselnitskaya and Trump campaign–Russian meeting depending on if there is follow through on the block evasion threat. Although with the trump meeting article, it was only early on that they were editing it today. Diffs on that one are [134] [135] [136]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 03:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
• Why are we shutting down the article when there is one editor that is pushing content without discussion? Casprings (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The reported IP has been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and engaging in battleground conduct toward other editors. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the full protection that was added needed on the two pages? Would semi-protection be enough? WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I do see that Ks0stm applied full protection to both Natalia Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin. I personally would have semi-protected these articles; I don't think full protection was necessary. I of course may be missing something that Ks0stm saw or don't have information that Ks0stm did; I'll ping Ks0stm and allow him to explain his rationale or perhaps lower the block if he agrees that it can be. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be an over-reaction to me. You can always remove it and watch the page. No harm in doing that.Casprings (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I just shot Ks0stm a message letting him know that I'm changing the protection on these articles and stepping it down to semi-protection. I don't think he'll care ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The deed is done ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. When I see a content dispute/edit warring between an IP and an established editor I tend to full protect so as to not unfairly advantage the established user in the content dispute. If it turns out that the IP was being disruptive more so than engaged in a content dispute, I'm always happy for it to be lowered to semi. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DePiep

Complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a complaint against User:DePiep of uncivility, and particularly of edit-warring and personal attacks. My apologies for the length, but as DePiep has been a persistent problem I believe full documentation is necessary.

On 1 June DePiep – self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department (actually: as a formatting fanatic)" (diff) — began opining at Talk:Seismic scale (diff) that the symbol "M", as used in identifying earthquake magnitude scales, should be italicized. (Related comments subsequently made at Template_talk:Infobox_earthquake#Magnitude_notation.)

He has subsequently argued at Talk:Seismic scale#It would be better to use "Richter" instead of "Richter scale" (6 July diff) that "scale" should be removed from various section headers in that article, and even article titles (e.g.: Moment magnitude scale -> Moment magnitude).

I have expressed reservations about some of his ideas, and as I am the only other commentator I would expect that he understands that he does not have consensus. (Especially as "pushing change without consensus" was the very point he complained of regarding someone else on the 4th [diff].)

Nonetheless, on 22 June he "boldly" – which is to say, without discussion or consultation specific to that page – added a formatted "M_L" symbol to Richter magnitude scale (diff). When Dawnseeker2000 reverted (diff), with the edit summary "Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made, DePiep restored his edit (diff) just fifteen minutes later, with the edit summary "??? This is how we write M_L. What is your point?".

Recently (6 July) he began editing the documentation for Template:M (a template I have been preparing for readily formatting and tracking the use of earthquake magnitude scales) by relabeling links to "Richter magnitude scale" to "Richter magnitude" (diff. When I reverted (diff), asking him to discuss if he has an issue, he restored his edit (diff), saying: "I already *did* discuss & source (ISO, SI) this." He certainly did not discuss that change at Template talk:M, where his only contribution to that point (see history) was to assert that using a magnitude symbol without an equal sign (i.e.: "M_w") is a "Major error". (It appears that he considers his remarks at Talk:Seismic scale enough discussion for proceeding.)

He made some additional edits, and when I reverted one, asking him to "Discuss before resuming", he again restored (diff), with the edit summary: "Undid revision 789694974 by J. Johnson (talk) per WP:BOLD and WP:BRD: improvements. Don't just blindly say 'undiscussed so bad' Why do you revert this table cleanup?"

Since the 8th he has been heavily editing Template:M itself (see history), which has caused some breakage. When I reverted his initial edit (diff), with the comment "Please do not break the template simply because you don't like theformat.", he reverted (six minutes later, diff), with the comment: "Undid revision 789694079 by J. Johnson (talk) 1. I did not break anything. 2. the testcases page now is double again. 3. another personal jab in your es (why?)". At which point I felt it was useless to chase after all his edits. I reverted several edits this morning, but he immediately undoes them (see history).

On 9 July DePiep revised the use of Template:M in some 50 earthquake articles, and around 30 lists of earthquakes. While these edits may have indeed been improvements, again it was without discussion. When Dawnseeker2000 (who has been maintaining many of those articles and lists) objected (at Template_talk:M#Major error, (diff)), DePiep's response (diff)was to evade responsibility and blame it on me: "I used the style as provided & documented by this template (created by J. Johnson)." (To forestall DePiep's anticipatable retort: Dawnseeker2000 is not complaining of the formatting produced by the template, but of how you used template.)

All of the above demonstrates demonstrates a lack of respect for other editors, and for established norms of conduct, all constituting an in-grained lack of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, DePiep has repeatedly insinuated that I have attacked him. E.g.:

• At Talk:Seismic scale#Lede, when I suggested that attempting to "define, measure, and describe" magnitude in the lede was "rather pedantic", he construed it as "A jab that could be perceived as a personal attack even." (diff),

• At Talk:Moment_magnitude_scale#Distracting_editsummary_vs._clear_statements he stated (diff) that an edit summary of mine (diff) "introduces a distraction of the topic even introducing Accusation about personal behavior that lack evidence."

• At Template_talk:M#Major error: "your responses are touching WP:PA, WP:BF, WP:CIVIL trespassing without being helpful or improving." (diff)

I believe a close examination of each of these cases shows that his imputation of a personal attack is baseless.

For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to commitments in RL, I cannot comment earlier than later today (UTC). -DePiep (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to hear from DePiep but this does not look good — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI can be harsh, and I'm not here to throw anyone under the bus (I've been the subject here a few times). I usually don't have much to say, but let me start by saying that up until this post, I considered DePiep's stance and tone a little unusual. This was the case in an edit summary after I'd reverted a change of his on Richter magnitude scale with the explanation to wait until we have an agreement on formatting. This was soon reverted with the tail end of his summary saying "what is your point?". That's fine I suppose, but I did not challenge or even attempt to communicate about it because it was clear to me from what he chose to say that we were nowhere near on the same page and that it would have been fruitless to press.

I can also say that the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with earthquake prediction and the new template places him in a very small club. Only a few editors that I know of can dive as deep as he has into these topics. Most of what he works on is beyond the scope of my understanding, so I casually observe and rarely comment.

So for my final few words, I'd like to say a few things not about this dispute, but about this project and the people that make it happen. Now keep in mind that I've been the topic here at ANI. Not necessarily for these reasons, but I've been impolite and rude during some clashes with editors during 10 years of editing. I have a mark on my block log. I did not know of DePiep's block history until now, but I think there's something to be said about it. I see it as an indication of something going on under the hood and/or a possible lack of ability to learn from one's mistakes. To be fair, my editing style is one that usually keeps me by myself in some dark corner of WP, because that is something that helps to avoid conflict. Not always of course, but that is a strategy that usually that works for me.

Looking at the most recent item for the 3-month block last summer is the log entry "Trolling other account during ANI discussion about his trolling". We really don't see super egregious block reasons like that all that often. At least I don't. To me, that is over the top, but what bothers me the most about that incident is that DePiep probably offended another user by attempting to pipe their username in a bad light ([[User:keep your trolling to yourself if you don't want to go the same way|Andy Dingley]]). When asked about it, he lied about how it came to be, by saying it was a copy and paste issue. That's nonsense. We've all seen editors get into disputes here and have heated conversations, but lying is a problem that probably shouldn't be overlooked. Looking at the current issue alongside last year's, I'm seeing an editor that should be watched and contemplated. Dawnseeker2000 02:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

re the edits in Richter magnitude scale, a nice example of uncontroversial (BRD) editing. 1, me, 2. your rv 3, my rv. I clearly added (not changed) the Richter symbol (M_L ) to the lede, as other magnitude scales have (Surface wave magnitude, Moment magnitude scale). I claim this is simple article improvement, outside of the formatting discussion, and so not to be pre-discussed but can simply be done by WP:BRD. (The actual format I choose to use is the same JJ had coded before in {{M}} for Richter). OTOH, your es Please wait until an agreement on formatting is made is referring to the open formatting discussion. Sure that issue is to be decided, but that does not mean we can not add or use a symbol (aka label, denotion) meanwhile. Had you edited the symbol into some other format, say "RL" (which very well could be sourced & motivated too), that would have been fine there even while touching the open controversy. Just don't remove the symbol.

re the work that I've seen J. Johnson do with ... the new template places him ...: Yes, I can agree. I actually edited articles to use the template as J. Johnson defined it!

re your restarting of a closed discussion: Please reconsider and remove. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Takes more time to reply than expected, sorry. I am working on it. -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by DePiep.

Allow me to describe this issue from my perspective. I know this reply is very long, but allow me a 'better safe than sorry' in this.

Core topic was and is is the writing of earthquake strengths, think Richter and MMS, in wording, formula and sequence: using symbols, formatting with/without uppercase, italics & subscripting and in wording. Apart from this, broader area is WP:EARTHQUAKE.

Initially, I added talkpage items re the topic on {{infobox earthquake}}, seismic scale and template:M. This way, posts did overlap & cross-reference. My approach was: treat as physical quantity, as described in the authoritative SI-brochure. Later on I added ISO 80000 [139], nicely advised by J. Johnson (JJ), into this recap. My core topic proposals were and are "under discussion", that is: no consensus for change. I did not implement any such proposal.

Innocent edits: I also did edits in the earthquake domain not concerning the "under discussion" topic: [140] use ENGVAR in infobox (not challenged), lede (was rv'ed with a talk), sp, [141], [142] rm page from maintenance category.

Me editing Template:M: I did not change the template's function, intention, or aim. What I did edit were template-technical improvements (like: refine error message, simplify code, remove unused and double code, expand abrreviations, remove code unfit for mainspace, fix code errors, add errorhandling) [143]. In its documentation, again I did not change the essence. I did do clean up, added examples, fix spellings, add user-helpfuls, etc. [144]. None of these edits changes the template's basic documentation or regular output.

Using {{Template:M}}: Before I joined, on June 16, JJ already had announced its roll out, and later published its usage in mainspace. (Note that JJ's formatting per the template and my formatting proposal are in agreement!). Strange is that JJ here says a template I have been preparing (sic): it was live in mainspace in ca. 150 articles. The template did not claim any restriction for its usage. So I recently edited ~50 articles already using that template, following all its intents and purposes (and, not coincidentally, the ordering as done by USGS) e.g., [145], [146].

So far. Edits outside of the under-discussion topic can't reasonably be called controversial, or editwarring. There is no blanket rule to say: you should discuss each and every edit first. WP:BOLD and BRD will do.

Now about the controversial topics & edits. Sure there are edits I better had made differently or not at all, for various reasons: like [147], [148]. In other words: these are incidents.

Edits by JJ making an issue personal: Your personal conception of "truth" is irrelevant in es. First ignoring SI and ISO sources, then turning this as if it is something "personal". I already noted this here.

Here JJ writes: Before you over-extrapolate your physics in an area new to you. Above, in this ANI, in paragraph 2: DePiep, self-declared as "recently entered the earthquake domain, coming from the physics department" is used as a argument somehow in ANI? While actually, here is the literal example from WP:NPA#WHATIS: "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?". (I also note: The diff is possibly off-topic, or even can be read supporting my layman's point in there).

In one reply [149], JJ says both is just your personal opinion and you have not cited or provided any basis or authority for your opinion other than to chant "SI! SI! ISO!".. So while ignoring the sources I mention, blaming me for not mentioning sources and then attacking the strawman. Note the dismissive wording "to chant".

Before JJ and I met, an other editor is addressed And you are being a jerk [150]. Not that I went to search for this, but it's hard to not-read it.

Blaming me for starting talks. In this very ANI post ([151]), paragraph 2, 3 and 4, JJ blames me for starting a talk and arguing. [DePiep] began opining at Talk:Seismic scale that ..., He has subsequently argued ..., I have expressed reservations about .... Why is this an argument in ANI at all I wonder, other than to compliment me for going to Talk in the first place??? Some talks I started: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157]. AFAIK, I have not made any edit based on any inconclusive talk I opened.

Touch of WP:OWN: JJ seems to think that by saying "Do not edit this", no edit may be done. However, that is not how WP work. For example, this reply says For now, leave it alone as a command (while the better, harmless and non-controversial edit is to switch it off for being untested and unfit for mainspace). Also commanding is Absolutely do not ... (it should be by argument of course) [158].

Reverted with the wrong reason: Six edits by me were reverted in a pattern. In the es, JJ mentioned a reason to revert, but that reason was incorrect. These are the edits: rv1-2-3: no, the template was not broken, no it was not an "I don't like the format" (turning this personal btw), and yes there was an an improvement. rv-4, rv-5 (the example was sourced in the es), rv-6 - it was and is. It looks as if they were reverted without having any consideration wrt the actual change.

Blanket complaint. JJ's approach is throwing all my edits into one basket. Edits should be differentiated. In the 2nd sentence opening line: DePiep has been a persistent problem is personal (in itself not that noteworthy, but it relates to the whole approach).

Round up. All in all: Bad edits, as exceptions, I already admitted. Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages. Edits of non-controversial nature (e.g., improve existing documentation, template-technical edits, use template) were done using existing templates, talks and practices, for example as created and promoted by JJ. Usually these are fit for BOLD and BRD. Claiming that each and every BOLD/BRD resolvable edit is under this ANI-complaint is not fair, and so is the editwarring and not-talked accusation that follows that misconception. I did point to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both by making things personal and by making less correct edits (like rv's). That are ngog presented as cut-and-dried trespassing judgements, but they do paint the atmosphere.

Re Dawnseeker2000: to speed up this posting, I will reply to their post later on.

I conclude: I fully accept that some of my 100+ edits in this area were bad up for improvement (afterwards or even beforehand). Also I tried to describe here that the other edits were either out of controversial area (BOLD and BRD acceptable), were within accepted writing (e.g., by current template usage), and other edits were about improvements of the topic in dispute (Talkpages).

I protest the approach by JJ of blanketing all my edits into one ANI complaint, for example even mentioning Talks I started as objectable. I also pointed to some unhelpful edits by JJ, both in say BRD-handling and personalising an issue (earlier; yes, pot & kettle).

How to proceed?: I think in this situation it's hard to get this WP:EARTHQUAKE area back on track in communications and article improvements between us. To allow such improvement though, I therefore propose that I voluntarily shall not edit in this area for a year. The area includes: WP:EARTHQUAKE esp wrt seismic scales, templates etc. and their talks. Unless, that is, I am explicitly invited by an active WP:QUAKE member. -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Rejoinders

DePiep protests I have made a "blanket complaint", that I am "throwing all [his] edits into one basket." That is correct. I am not looking for relief regarding a number of individual edits ("100+"?), which would be tedious and even tendentious to raise here, but on the pattern of his behavior.

He argues that "[e]dits should be differentiated", but that is to evade the pattern of behavior. (As lawyers say: when the other side has you on the law, argue the facts; when they have you on the facts, argue the law.) Nonetheless, I do agree that patterns should have a factual basis, and a close examination of some these instances could be in order. And even welcome, as I see his interpretation of several cases as being higly skewed, even false.

Which I think touches on a key problem here: DePiep's highly skewed perception of various matters. E.g., the background I provided of where this issue started he characterizes as "Blaming [him] for starting talks.". That characterization is simply ludicrous.

Similarly for his defense of his using the template. He goes to some length to prove that it was okay to use the template, but (as I anticipated in my complaint) he still fails to understand that the issue is not the use, but how he used it.

He states: "Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages." Apparently he does not consider reversion of his edits as an indication of controversy. Or perhaps he does not accept that as controversial unless we persist in reverting his edits. That, of course, would be edit-warring, which I and Dawnseeker2000 eschewed. I note he rejects some of my reversions as having "the wrong reason"; I don't believe the significance of a reversion depends on his assessment of the reason given.

Nor were his edits "extensively addressed on talkpages." As mentioned in my complaint: he started editing the template on the 8th, and the documentation on the 6th, while his initial edit at Template_talk:M ("Major error") does not pertain to any actual edits. Not until the 9th was there any discussion (and very thin at that) pertaining to any editing.

DePiep has offered a voluntary topic ban, but only for a year. I don't find that limitation acceptable, as I don't want to have to go through this again in a year. And it should be an enforced (non-voluntary) ban, lest he have any confusion it is at his option. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Earliest time to reply: Saturday or Sunday. -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

re J. Johnson (JJ). In the WP:EARTHQUAKE domain, I started several talks in the undecided topic of formatting the magnitude physical quantity. I did not edit articles in this topic.

I did do:

1. Made technical improvements to Template:M like refine errormessages, rm unused code [159] (12 edits; numbers are by approximation)
2. Cleanup and improve its /documentation (twice with a source even) [160] (25)
3. Reverse a rv reverse that was based on an incorrect judgement: the template was not broken (6)
4. Remove maintenance category from articles [161] (30)
5. Use template:M, already in the articles, following its original setup and documentation [162] (50)
6. Started a Talk on topics that were under discussion/controversial [163] (<=6)
7. Made trivial improvements
8. Made obvious improvements explained

None of these edits are in the 'controversial' topic. So these edits should be struck from the list of my edits beforehand. Remaining edits (if any at all) are hardly enough to show a "pattern", and diffs are missing. This is not 'evading' the pattern, this is disproving the "pattern". There is no pattern.

I have described what the controversial topic is, and subsequently pointed out that I did not edit articles re that topic. Of course then, JJ has not provided diffs in this. In this reply, JJ quotes me while leaving out that description (my "Controversial edits hardly occurred, but instead were extensively addressed on talkpages" became: Nor were his edits "extensively addressed on talkpages: note the disappearing of 'instead' and 'controversial', changing the meaning profoundly by some 180 degrees). So by taking my words out of context, he declares each and every edit 'controversial'. But reverting or opposing an edit is not the same as declaring controversial. I repeatedly wrote, here too, that for most edits outside of the topic under discussion, simply a WP:BOLD or WP:BRD process will do. But JJ did not go to "D". He now seems to reason: 'I reverted, so it's controversial, so all edits are blocked'. This is incorrect, and an example of WP:OWN attitude.

I used Template:M as created and promoted by JJ [164], following its documentation, while already in the articles. That is "how" I used it. JJ has not made clear why I should not use this template as published.

In paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the opening complaint here, JJ accuses me of starting talks and arguing. How this could be a reason for an ANI action is still unclear to me. Then, in this reply, JJ writes: his initial edit at Template_talk:M ("Major error") does not pertain to any actual edits. Yes! That is the controversial topic, so I started a talk beforehand and did not edit! JJ is vindicating me. Why is this a problem? See also this cynical comment. Again JJ is blaming me for starting a talk on a controversial issue instead of editing.

JJ did not reply to the various personal attacks I listed. Too often JJ has turned a technical issue into a personal jab. See the listing with diffs in my first #Reply.

More and more JJ shows an attitude of WP:OWNERSHIP. Requiring respect for other editors here as an argument, commanding to not edit "For now, leave it alone", "Absolutely do not ...", claiming I-say-controversy-so-edit-is-forbidden in this reply above.

I request that admins view this as a complaint on blockable PA and OWN offences. However, my proposal to drop the stick still stands. -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said before: I believe a close examination shows that all of DePiep's imputations of a personal attack by me are baseless, and therefore constitute a personal attack by him. We can explore that if anyone has any questions.

DePiep continues with this strawman argument of accusing me of accusing him "of starting talks and arguing" (not at all the case), he continues to defend his use of the template where that is not the issue, has a curious concept of "controversial", and he makes demonstrably false statements. (E.g., re his "I started a talk beforehand and did not edit!": his first comment at Template_talk:M that pertained to any actual edits was at 20:32, 9 July, by which time he had accrued 15 edits at Template:m/doc and 11 edits at the template itself. DePiep's notion of "beforehand" and "did not edit!" seem confused.) He also keeps trying to make this about me, presumably to deflect attention from his own block history.

Unless anyone has a question, I don't believe DePiep's comments require any further reply. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe ... is not really an argument.

Quotes are out of context, again. (simple: I started a talk about the controversial topic and did not edit that topic. Tellingly, no diffs are provided).

presumably to deflect attention from: no arguments of diffs any more?

Again, J. Johnson did not go into my complaint about their PA and OWN behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just an observation

• I hope both of you realize no one's going to read all this, right? EEng 02:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I hope concluding admins do. How else can one judge? Sure I see the problem, but I saw no other way. It is a blanket accusation (a "pattern"), which I needed to respond to by debunking re sets of edits & diffs. Other suggestions anyone? -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have, glazed eyes and all. The solution may be DePiep's offer of a one year topic ban, as the goal is just to stop disruptions and get people back to editing in that topic area productively. It would have to be an enforceable topic ban (in lieu of a block) where he understands that if he breaches it, it will mean a block of no less than say, two weeks. That would provide the proper incentive. Him admitting some of his work was less than helpful makes this a bit easier to work with. As for "having to deal with this again in one year", while that is a valid concern, a one year solution is better than none, and that is kicking the can far enough down the road that I think it is worth considering. Terms would read "Depiep is topic banned from all earthquake topics including seismic scales on all pages of Wikipedia, broadly construed. A minimum two week block will be imposed on any clear violation of this topic ban. As this is a voluntary topic ban in lieu of a block, there are no provisions for appeal." with no exception for invitations. Depiep would need to agree to this tban, which is slightly stronger than his idea, and the community would need to have no strong objection to it. I think you have to leave out exceptions simply because that makes it harder to police and can lead to problems. It has to be a cut and try tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

No one other than Dennis Brown, of course. That goes without saying. EEng 20:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I could accept that. And I would offer that he can make suggestions on my talk page, provided he understands that if I "disinvite" him he is expected to respect that. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem with exceptions is that they must be interpreted by the community each time. Better to have no exceptions. He can always email you ideas, as email is exempt from the tban, as long as he doesn't talk about the emails here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Given the remarks by Dennis Brown, that adjustment might be fine. I don't think the formalisation is that much required, as any trespassing would create a small post here at ANI. JJ's talkpage is not part of the topic (unless JJ really claims ownership of the earthquake project). I note that above, I've added a request to judge JJ's activities as PA and OWN, so possibly grounds for blocking. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ, Dennis Brown. This is getting out of hand. I proposed a voluntary 1-year self-imposed ban, which was rejected by complaining JJ. By now, my generous drop-the-stick proposal (into a clean, fast, and no-fuss closure to enable the good wiki workings), is turned into a formal ban, with the time limit removed, which is not part of my proposal and which rewards JJ's sloppy, smearing, and underfounded complaint. Also, I seriously complained and documented that JJ breached WP:PA and WP:OWN (even before this thread opened, for example on their talkpage). JJ now is applauding a formal ban, while actually "in a year" it might be JJ just as well that is trespassing again. Therefor I put my offer on hold, until the whole of JJ's behaviour is scrutinised and judged as well. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: I can fully agree on dropping the stick. That's about all I can say. —JJB^ers 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I proposed so, then J. Johnson rejected it. -DePiep (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to satisfy my curiousity: how do you get from my statement (above, highlighted) "I could accept that" to the diametrically opposite "rejected it"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

J. Johnson: DePiep has offered a voluntary topic ban, ... I don't find that limitation acceptable, as I don't want to have to go through this again in a year. And it should be an enforced (non-voluntary) ban, ... ~ J. Johnson (JJ)23:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC) ... #Rejoiners (diff not available from hist).

So the quick & clean closing proposal was rejected. What JJ 'could accept' was a formal rewritten phrasing. That also did not respond to my explicitly written & sourced complaint that J. Johnson's trespassing of WP:PA and WP:OWN should be taken into account. (This is the third time JJ tries to ignore and evade this topic btw). -DePiep (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On the 12th I noted my objection to your voluntary ban. On the 15th Dennis said "that is a valid concern", but also explained why a one-year ban is "worth considering". I so considered, and then allowed "I could accept that." That you consider that a rejection shows, at best, a very selective reading of matters. Some of the other possibilities are sufficiently evident that I don't need to describe them.

I am not ignoring or evading any topic (except your state of mind), and will respond to anyone else's questions. I am (mostly) ignoring your comments because your battleground attitude suggests you are just trolling (again). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerns about admin ProhibitOnions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia admin User:ProhibitOnions created the article JT Foxx on 29 June. It appeared to exist only to label Foxx as a swindler. Among other things, ProhibitOnions sourced Foxx's real name to a copy of a court document. After new editors with an apparent conflict of interest appeared, ProhibitOnions protected the article. I noticed it because it was discussed at the COI noticeboard. I asked ProhibitOnions to unprotect it so that I could propose deletion. I was going to leave it at that, but today ProhibitOnions added more information sourced to Meetup (website) and Instagram postings. I feel this is unacceptable from an admin. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "unacceptable from an admin," it's just more or less not allowed; BLP policy relating to primary sources specifically prohibits the use of primary sources such as public records in articles about living people, except as an adjunct to reliable sources which discuss the topic. Clearly, Meetup, high school reunion websites, Instagram posts and YouTube videos are not the kind of reliable secondary sources we want for articles about living people, so I've removed those sources... I think the PROD will probably go through because this is pretty clearly a non-notable person. I don't think this requires administrative action, but ProhibitOnions might want to brush up on their understanding of sourcing policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

How and when did that guy get to be an admin? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thirteen years ago the only requirement for adminship was asking. Contrast that with the hell-week that's currently required, yet these admins from the nascent days of the project have the exact same lifetime infallibility. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It's mildly concerning. Thirteen years an admin and showing no understanding of one of our most basic, and most fundamental, policies? Just... wow. — fortunavelut luna 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

2006 was a simpler time, and a lot has changed since then. SkyWarrior 16:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis, eh? Or not, as the case might be. — fortunavelut luna 17:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You do realize most of us don't read Martian, right? What a snob! EEng 18:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Get off my 2006 adminship lawn! only (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Woah, easy there, Grandpa! If you want to walk to the mainspace, let me hold your hand and help you cross the street so you don't get hurt :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I shake my fist at you! The Moose 19:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Regardless, the prod says "The article seems to be overtly promotional." but here you say "It appeared to exist only to label Foxx as a swindler". Make your mind up! I don't like misleading prods. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article changed between creation and the point that I proposed deletion. You can go through the history and see who added what, but due in part to ProhibitOnions poor sourcing, several of the references were Foxx's own promotional material. If what I wrote on the prod template is what bothers you about this, you may be missing the point. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bit unfair that - the original article as created by ProhibitOnions contained two sentences, one of which suggested Foxx was a swindler ... and the later versions ladled in Foxx promotional material. Whilst I don't think there's any administrative action required here, it bothers me a lot that we still have admins that don't understand basic policy. Black Kite (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

DESYOP EVERYONE! —JJB^ers 22:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"As an administrator, we generally trust him to do what it takes to correct these potential issues" seems like a very misplaced sentiment. He has demonstrated that he has not beeen doing what we trusted him to do, namely following the rules and guidelines that apply to any editor. I'm all for giving someone a chance to correct their ways, but I don't think this discussion should be closed until ProhibitOnions has had a chance to comment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we can assume good faith that it was an honest mistake by someone unfortunately unfamiliar with sourcing policies and who doesn't appear to have much experience editing articles about living people. If ProhibitOnions takes this opportunity to review their mistakes, take a good hard look at WP:RS and WP:BLP, they'll move forward with a better understanding of our sourcing requirements and hopefully not make this kind of error again. If they don't take the hint, I'd agree that stronger responses would be required. But let's try education before enforcement. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but I don't think they have acknowledged that they have read this discussion. WP:ADMINACCOUNT and all that. --Rschen7754 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Does that mean you finally read WP:ADMINACCOUNT? Guess not if you're still wielding the bit.Joefromrandb (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's true. I think we should at expect a response here acknowledging their mistakes and affirming that they'll review relevant policies and comply in the future. I took the time to leave them a talk page message breaking down a couple of their edits and explaining why they violated policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The very first line of ADMINACCOUNT is "Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools" - so its irrelevant unless Admin tools were actually used. While all *editors* are expected to explain their edits - if we dragged every editor to ANI and forced them to kowtow anytime they did anything wrong, we would be here until the sun dies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. However, I will state that administrators generally should be able and willing to explain all of their actions if they come into question by anyone and regardless of whether or not they involved the use of administrator tools. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree to some extent, but I don't think that a response is required from him here; we can generally expect that the user will read this ANI discussion once he becomes aware of it from the notice left on his talk page, take note of the things that he needs to fix, and improve on these issues without having to tell us that he'll do so. Let me be clear about something for the record: I am not trying to give him such an easy time because he's an administrator; I'd do the same thing for pretty much anybody if they were in this exact situation. What I'm saying is that, because he's an administrator, we can expect that he'll read this discussion and do what he needs to do in order to fix and improve upon the concerns expressed here. If, say, he fails to do so and we observe repeated issues, I feel that it would uncover wider concerns and also feel that he can still be held accountable given that we expect him, as an administrator, to have the knowledge and ability to read and take steps to address potential problems. If anyone has any further questions or concerns, please let me know and I'll be happy to answer them and help. Cheers :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis added) --Rschen7754 18:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, didn't ProhibitOnions 1) edit war to re-introduce content that another editor was removing based on WP:BLP concerns and then 2) semi-protect the article to get the upper hand against the IP in that edit war? How is this not a misuse of admin rights as a violation of WP:INVOLVED, in addition to a violation of WP:BLP? Deli nk (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It's more subtle than that. ProhibitOnions was edit warring with obvious promotional accounts. He called the efforts to remove Foxx's birth name (which he had sourced to a court record) "[vandalism" and used it to justify protecting the page. He cited WP:BLP in that same comment. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Due to the ongoing discussion that has been occurring "post-close" as well as the additional concerns raised about possible edit warring and possible inappropriate application of page protection, I have removed my closure of this discussion and re-opened it to allow further discussion to continue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ProhibitOnions did reply and I'm satisfied with the response. --Rschen7754 04:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with ProhibitOnions' response as well - they've indicated a thoughtful consideration of the issues involved, and I think we can close this now with a trouting and get back to building an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions replied to a question about two sets of inappropriate edits that are 'weeks apart by saying he "got whisked away" by an urgent matter. Then goes on to imply again that Foxx is a flim-flam artist. He did not acknowledge that there were any problems with creating an article attacking someone or with protecting it. On the COI noticeboard, ProhibitOnions denied that the article was "attackish". I would prefer that ProhibitOnions explicitly addresses these things, but I won't hold my breath. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amisom violating 0RR restriction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Amisom (talk · contribs) was recently given a ban on reverting editors by SilkTork after several instances of removing content that was either reliably sourced, or an attempt could be made to source it. (Eg: [165], [166], [167], [168]). Amisom's next action after receiving the ban notice was to re-revert something.

SilkTork came close to blocking Amison per WP:NOTHERE. Given he has immediately done what he was asked not to do, I think the community needs to look at this more closely. I am WP:INVOLVED as I am the main contributor to North Circular Road who got it to good article status, so obviously I can't be considered particularly impartial to content disputes there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well; first things first- formalise ST's ORR restriction- say two months? I'm holding off suggesting a block as it appears that Amisom is currently offline, and I would quite like to hear from them as to how they parsed "you are banned from reverting any editor, and banned from removing content from any article" to allow edits they themselves summarised as "I'm not banned from doing anything" and removing material as "totally irrelevant." The answer might inform our response. — fortunavelut luna 16:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On the other hand, SilkTork has formalised things in a slightly different manner :) — fortunavelut luna 16:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

SilkTork has already re-blocked the editor indefinitely for the latest revert though Alex Shih^Talk 16:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh right. I thought a community discussion first was slightly fairer, but it's only being involved that stopped me blocking him myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked the user. Given the edit history and uncollegiate attitude I was minded to block on reviewing his history, but felt that informing him that his approach was not helpful, and allowing him a chance to improve would be fairer. Now that he has deliberately re-reverted with combative comments, contrary to what I told him, I have removed his editing privileges. I am doubtful if this is a user who is genuinely interested in being collegiate and helping to build the project. But if he does put forward a convincing unblock request I will give him another chance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

if they request lifting of the block, admins may want to be aware of this recent RSN thread and the related [history of their talk page from 7/3/2017 to 7/4/2017], with multiple attempts to counsel them by admins and users aggressively rejected. I'm certain the admins who have taken part in this so far are aware, but I am referencing for the convenience of others who may wander by. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

For waht it's worth, they are effectively a new newish user; [169], with over a thousand of their edits being from this May. I'm not sure about that new Xtools interface either. Seems to have a lack of numbers. — fortunavelut luna 17:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the basis for the ban? An admin can't ban anyone unilaterally from doing anything (outside of an area covered by discretionary sanctions). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BU Rob13. See the comment I made on Amisom's user talk page here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bit late now... but that's why I wanted it formalised here, earlier. In fact it was too late about thirty seconds or so later. — fortunavelut luna 19:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If an admin gave a ban they have no authority to give and then blocked based on that ban, then the block can and will be lifted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the only instance it can be imposed unilaterally, is if it's self-imposed, as a restriction being placed and then enacted by an admin (for example, for an unblock). --QEDK (愛) 20:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the restriction was put in place to stave off a block. As in the admin thought their behavior warranted a block but decided to give them one last chance. Could this be seen as a rescinding of that chance? --Tarage (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The editor is clearly being deliberately disruptive, so a sanction is completely valid here. I'd suggest that an admin (I'll do it myself if no-one else wants to) unblocks Amisom, and then re-blocks them indefinitely for disruption. If they can then post an unblock appeal showing that they are serious about what they say, then that's great. But I don't see the point in unblocking purely for a minor administrative point. Black Kite (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not a minor administrative point; the editor received a warning. His edit was then reverted because "editor is under a ban from reverting". He reverted essentially saying "No, I'm not." He was right! I'm unblocking him. If he takes any disruptive actions after his warning, sure, block for disruption. We aren't going around placing fake restrictions on editors then blocking them as a direct result of those fake restrictions and the confusion they cause other editors, though. That's lunacy. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to point out, this is an editor who claims that they don't know what an inline citation is, just after they've called another editor a dick for not including one, followed by doubling down on that one followed by a "fuck you"? I presume you will of course be keeping a close eye on this editor if you're unblocking them? Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Of course, and I warned them they'll likely be swiftly re-blocked if they're disruptive. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to BU Rob13 and others for their understanding in this difficult sitution. Amisom (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Amisom, you got off on a technicality, barely. There is plenty of valid justification to block you right now, so I highly suggest you watch your behavior and fix your attitude. You won't escape sanctions a second time. --Tarage (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am truly disturbed by the blocking admin's actions. Since when admins were allowed to ban users without community consensus? Of all of the 4 years I have been here, all decisions were made by the community and, upon agreement, an admin would implement the decision. Not "I don't like the way you edit, so I am banning you for reverting." The proper way to deal with this is either on the user's talk page or bring it to an AN board. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Again I think it's less "I'm going to block you if you do X" and more "I was going to block you, but I'm going to give you one more chance so long as you don't X". Yes, it's a very small distinction, but I feel it's an important one. It's an admin saying that under normal circumstances, they would block. I've seen many admins do this. --Tarage (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

True, but still. 0RR restrictions and such should be established through community consensus and not individually. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• It makes no sense that an admin can "unilaterally" block someone for disruption, but cannot "ban" them from a particular type of disruption in lieu of blocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Per WP:CONDUNBLOCK it is established that topic bans can be given as part of an unblock negotiation, if the blocked user agrees to the deal. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, but that certainly doesn't support an admin unilaterally applying a restriction. If the admin thought a restriction was more appropriate than a block, they could bring that to ANI. They can't supplant the community when it comes to bans. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BU Rob13 kind of stepped on my somewhat verbosely-stated point, but I didn't want to lose the following comment to the aether. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

TLDR: I agree with BU Rob13, disagree with Floq, and think EdJohnston's comment is accurate but doesn't really apply here. I also think that if Amisom is to be subjected to an editing restriction, or even an indefinite block per NOTHERE, then that discussion deserves to be had here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Unblock conditions that are agreed to by the unblocked editor are binding restrictions, despite the tendency of some editors to treat them as "voluntary". The problem in this case is that it was not an unblock condition agreed to by the editor. SilkTork was out of line unilaterally placing an editing restriction like that, and should be strongly TROUTed. If SilkTork had blocked the editor per NOTHERE, that would have been within the purview of normal admin activity. But "bans" and other editing restrictions that are unilaterally place by admins have no authority, and should never be enforced with blocks lacking prior community consensus. Think about it: if SilkTork can place a NOTHERE editor (and I'm not expressing an opinion whether the editor is NOTHERE) under 0RR because they are NOTHERE and then block them per the terms of their "restriction", what's to stop SilkTork from placing a topic ban on a user whose edits he doesn't think are appropriate, and blocking them when they violate these "bans"? And if not SilkTork, any random editor who passed RFA? It's a literal administrative nightmare. The difference between CONDUNBLOCK and this situation is that with CONDUNBLOCK, the restriction is not a unilateral decision by an admin: the blocked user must agree, and so while it is enforceable and not "voluntary" like some users seem to believe from time to time, it cannot be put in place in the first place without prior consent. Now, if someone wants to propose that Amisom be placed under a 0RR restriction, or even blocked indefinitely per NOTHERE, that would be another question, but asking that the user be blocked simply for the action of violating a restriction that they were never subject to in the first place is out of the question. disclosure of bias Full disclosure: About six months ago I was nearly blocked because I had violated a restriction that had been unilaterally placed on me by an admin, despite my initial protests (read: the sanction was not agreed to by me as an unblock condition) and those of a couple of other involved editors. BU Rob13, the admin who unblocked Amisom in this case, was my strongest defender at that time, and his opinion of the whole matter may have rubbed off on me a little. My opinion of "voluntary" unblock conditions is also coloured by something that happened in March/April of this year in an ANI thread where an editor was subjected to mandatory mentoring as a substitute to their being indefinitely blocked, and almost immediately ignored the mentoring and started personally attacking his mentor (me). Recently I have also noticed an editor who was NOTHERE-indeffed for close to a year, with the terms of his unblock being that he never engage in the kind of disruption he had before. Another incident involved an editor blocked for violating their IBAN with me, being unblocked because they claimed they had misunderstood BANEX, and subsequently violating their IBAN several times during the period in which they would have been blocked; their reading and understanding the terms of BANEX and never violating the ban was not an explicit condition of their being unblocked, and I'm only stating this here for full disclosure. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, as a totally uninvolved party, this whole thing looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. Yeah, the imposition of sanctions violated a rule, but it was done in what was obviously good faith, for an obviously effective reason. That being said, an indef block for a single sanction violation seems rather precipitous to me, and were I an admin, I probably would have done the same thing that BU Rob did. Honestly, I think we ended up facing the right direction the moment BU Rob unblocked, and that there's little to be gained from further discussion. So, does anyone mind if I close this thread? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you can close this. I'll just give my thinking on the incident, which I agree has already has already taken up enough people's time, but might be helpful to some. The user's behaviour was such that it would have been appropriate to block under WP:NOTHERE, and they could then have appealed the block with agreements on how they conduct themselves in future. That's what I was minded to do, and what I should have done. But I paused, because I felt that it might be fairer to give them the chance before blocking them. In hindsight that was a mistake. And then I compounded that error by poorly wording my message. I used the word ban. I did pause over that as I was typing it, as we have a specific use for that word on Wikipedia, which implies community consent, which I did not have, and I regret I did not at that time adjust my wording. So, my second error was writing that message too quickly, without giving due consideration to the impact and implications of my choice of words. As such the user has been unblocked on a technicality. Reversing another admin's actions on a technicality without first consulting with the admin for clarity, can be problematic; however, I understand the thinking behind the unblock, and I appreciate the admin's boldness, so there's no ill feeling there, just a slight embarrassment that I created this situation through my carelessness. Unblocking the user to reblock in order to get around the technicality is also understandable, but perhaps not appropriate. Let us see if the user has learned from this, and will become more collegiate in future. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I appreciate your comment here. For posterity, I'd like to note the editor in question's first action after being unblocked was to start an RfC on an issue he had been disagreeing with others on before the block rather than edit war, which is a constructive break from past practice. Seems like it all worked out for the encyclopedia in the end. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:The Banner is engaged in an edit war against User:Marrakech and me over whether the Lead at Peacock Alley should read "is a defunct restaurant that was housed.." or "was a restaurant that was housed..". The restaurant is listed in Category:Defunct restaurants in Ireland, and this is the entire basis on which The Banner rests his case that "is a defunct.." is the correct phrase. The Banner is apparently not a native speaker of English, whereas I am and Marrakech appears to be also. He either cannot comprehend that "was" is appropriate because the restaurant closed in 2002 and there is no evidence to show that it might reopen, in which case "defunct" would be appropriate, or he is simply being an obstacle. Some edit warring here, here, here.

The subject has been much covered at RefDesk:Language here, where it started out as a dispute between The Banner and Marrakech over the awarding of a star rating for the restaurant. Note that User:Bazza 7 and User:Loraof indicated support for "was" rather than "defunct". It looks like The Banner is going to keep on edit warring over his silly wording until he gets his way, in the face of consensus between myself and Marrakech. I'm asking for a block of 7 days. Akld guy (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

In fact, Akld guy is misrepresenting the case. Bazza 7 and Loraof agreed that is was better to use "was a restaurant" than "is a former restaurant". They have never ever spoken about there preference about "is a defunct restaurant". Unfortunately, Akld guy has no better arguments that some roaring about the fact that I am not a native speaker of English (true, I am a native Dutch speaker but live in Ireland since 2016) while he is. To my opinion, his language card he plays is not a fair one but feels like bullying. It is definitely to helpful for a meaningful discussion. The Banner talk 02:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Akld guy als played the language card in the original header of this discussion. See here: [170]. The Banner talk 02:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this opportunity to state what "defunct" means in this context. When it is said that X is a defunct restaurant, the "is" means that the restaurant still exists, more or less as it was when operating, but it has been mothballed pending reopening, or in case it might reopen. Nobody has shown that this restaurant, which closed in 2002, still exists as a restaurant, or that reopening is pending. Given how long it's been closed, I would be surprised if the premises hadn't been put to some other use. Therefore, without evidence, it would be misleading to say that it is a restaurant that is defunct. If The Banner wants to claim defunct, he must show evidence that the restaurant is mothballed, with covers over tables, chairs. Akld guy (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting definition of "defunct", too bad it flies in the face of what the dictionaries say it means:

• "no longer living, existing, or functioning" [171]
• "1. no longer in effect or use; not operating or functioning: 2. no longer in existence; dead; extinct:" [172]
• "no longer existing: " [173]
• "No longer existing or functioning." [174]

As you can see, none of these carry the meaning "temporarily suspended operation". "Defunct" means "dead", period, and your "native English speaker" understanding of it is wrong, while that of the Dutch native speaker is correct. I suggest you stop edit-warring to remove "defunct", because it's accurate. Even if another restaurant were to open in the space, Peacock Alley, the subject of the article, would still be defunct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. So now we can keep it as "was a restaurant" since it is no longer existing. "Defunct" is excessively wordy, and as I pointed out, "is a no longer existing restaurant" doesn't make sense. So can we have a decision on whether The Banner should be blocked for edit warring? Akld guy (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have a conflict of opinion going back years with The Banner over his interpretation of some of our notabillity issues, but his English is a lot better than that of a great many of the 'native' speakers on Wikipedia. Not only that, but in my experience (also as a linguist), and having lived in the Netherlands, I find that the use of English by Dutch people as non native speakers is probably some of the best in the world. I'm not sure about the edit warring (I haven't looked) but there are certainly no other grounds for requiring a block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

People here just don't seem to be getting it. If the sentence reads "X is a defunct restaurant", it clearly means that it exists (is) but is not functioning for some reason. For a restaurant that closed, apparently permanently, in 2002, it's not possible to say that it is a defunct restaurant, only that it was a restaurant. Akld guy (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Compare The Crystal Palace was a cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park to The Crystal Palace is a defunct cast-iron and plate-glass structure originally built in Hyde Park. Which of the two sounds better and more logical? Marrakech (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A bit of background. Originally the sentence read "Peacock Alley is a former restaurant", which didn't convey the intended meaning that the restaurant Peacock Alley does no longer exist. After an edit of mine changing the phrase to "was a restaurant" was promptly reverted by The Banner, I started the discussion that Akld guy refers to above. While that discussion was still underway, with "was a restaurant" gaining unanimous support, The Banner all of a sudden edited the phrase to read "Peacock Alley is a defunct restaurant", after which he declared the discussion moot. Asked why he prefers 'is a defunct restaurant' over the perfectly simple, appropriate and broadly supported 'was a restaurant' solution, he wrote: "the company running the restaurant is out of business, while the actual location might still be there. "was a restaurant" signals to me that there is no restaurant at all, not as location, not as company". Which is indeed, as Akld guy stated, an absurd explanation. Marrakech (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack over X1 CSD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page link is in my statement, as the article in question is a redirect

• diff of my request

• diff of contested deletion
• diff of my reply
• diff of the threat

• diff of my withdrawal in response to threat

I can understand when someone contests deletion of an article or a redirect, but for someone to threaten reporting me to ANI over it sounds insulting to me. And that's what happened to me when I tried explaining to this user my reasoning for nominating the redirect Starpeace 2 for X1 CSD, demanding I remove the notice or he would "report [me] to admins for that CSD rationale," because he thought the rationale was "ridiculous." The evidence in the redirect's history clearly shows that it was created by Neelix, a former administrator who, as you know, over the past 10 years (roughly) has created thousands of implausible and questionable redirects. I had withdrawn my request for deletion after the threat was made, but I still felt intimidated.

Thank you for any decision you take. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So your response is to take them to ANI? Your rationale is ridiculous to be honest. There is no reason to delete the redirect. --Tarage (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So, it's a Neelix redirect, but not one that's problematic. I can't see why it was CSD'd in the first place. Very poor judgment, if you ask me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Neelix? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 01:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a bit of background: [175] RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oooohhh. Muchas gracias. I thought he misspelled Netflix *facepalm*. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So what you're saying Beyond My Ken is that even though it's a Neelix redirect, it's possible that the redirect was not included as part of the ANI incident that RickinBaltimore mentioned? I wouldn't argue with this one, considering the redirect was made around the same time the incident was filed. I only know of the rationale after a few RfD discussions arose involving such (more specific, the issues over Communications vs Telecommunications.) I might need more clarification on how the rationale should be used before using it again. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is to put your brain in gear and examine the redirect in question to see if it's useful or not. If it isn't, then CSD it under X1. If it is, then don't get all knee-jerk about it and CSD it for the sake of CSDing every redirect Neelix did. If Neelix's redirects had been nuked in toto, as I argued at the time should be done, then this one would not be around, and that would have been an itsy-bitsy teeny-weeny loss to us, but nothing worth worrying about. Since they weren't, they need to be examined individually for their value. The X1 criteria is to help make it easier to get rid of those with no value, it's not there as a goad to force the deletion of every single Neelix redirect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Ken. It makes sense to me. Though for the user to threaten taking me to ANI, I'm still unsure whether it was warranted. It could've been much simpler to just say "Please strike the request." jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive and copyvio edits by 2stopwhispering

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can an admin please have a look at User:2stopwhispering's contributions? This user has been repeatedly converting redirects of non-notable songs into articles that aren't appropriate. E.g. here and here where the articles include the entire song's lyrics. Otherwise, the articles they've created or converted from redirects basically consist of "X is a song from Y album", see Narayan (song) and La Forme, also here, here, here and here. There are more examples in their contributions. Other than the aforementioned issues, their edits are also generally disruptive. When reverted, they simply persist, as on The Fat of the Land and Diesel Power (song). 2stopwhispering has been warned about test/disruptive edits on their talk page, but doesn't seem to care. Bennv3771 (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block for disruption, and cleaned up a number of their edits, revdel'ing the copyright violations with regards to the lyrics. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit war between myself and BilCat (talk · contribs) with blatant refusal to discuss the issue despite my offering to work with him and warned of 3RR on Republic of China Army, Republic of China Navy, Republic of China Marine Corps and Republic of China Military Police--Tærkast (Discuss) 15:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Take it to dispute resolution or the 3 RR board. As you admit to edit warring yourself, I would suggest the former. Irondome (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict).You're not trying to "work with me". You're dictating your opinion, and expecting me to abide by it. I've been watching these articles for several years trying to balance the ROC vs Taiwan sides, and you just showed up and decided to change things, without prior discussion. Also, I've made other improvements to the articles, primarily adding a useful infobox parameter, which your blanket reverts are continually removing. If you genuinely want to "work with me", revert yourself, and we can discuss this like adults. Otherwise,your past 3RR, and at risk of being blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional edits on Hatch End High School

I have concerns regarding some recent edits to Hatch End High School. A user, User:Hehscommsandweb17, has made a number of edits that seem very promotional and hardly in keeping with an encyclopedic style. The vast majority of the statements lack sources, and many of the claims are unverifiable anyway. Also the user would appear to be affiliated with the institution, "Hehs" being the initialism, and would also potentially appear to be a shared account. Full disclosure: I also have links with this institution (I'm not clear on where I can stand on this issue because of this), but I feel the breach of policies, and the issues with the page and user, stand for themselves.

I have not yet notified the user. I understand this is against the warning on this page, but I feel I am not experienced enough to be able to do so in an effective, appropriate manner. Basically, I don't know what to do (I did search for help, but wasn't able to find something I found clear enough or that I felt I was in a position of authority enough to do). I am requesting help on this matter, or alternatively, a more experienced user carry the issue forward. Let me know if I've done the right thing.

Camberwick (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Camberwick: Thanks for bringing this to our attention - I've left them a notification. It appears another editor (Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi) has already removed the promotionally toned additions, and I note their username could be "Hatch End High School Comms and Web 2017" (which is rather close to being against our username policy). I've left them some information on what a conflict of interest is and we'll see what they do next -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 10:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto TNT (ta for ping) and thanks very much to Camberwick for highlighting this here as well as their disclosure, which was fully in the spirit of policy. Cheers! — fortunavelut luna 10:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you everyone! Glad I was of help. Camberwick (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Nikkypassa

This user it's vandaliser He created article: Nitin gupta [[Nitin Gupta History]] And he vandalise his article Nitin gupta And I deleted his bad things Me and User:Arthistorian1977 Deleted what he done And I pretty sure he want start a Wikipedia:edit war He got 3 warnings and he don't stop,please help. --Builder8360 (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Builder8360: Thanks for letting us know - I've deleted the article so we'll see what they do now. They may move on to something else -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 09:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Thanks you, I will look at him sometimes. 😌 --Builder8360 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Deleted template's code

I need the source code for the deleted template Template:Infobox civil conflict/color to import to another wiki. --stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you got the right one? The colour in that template was #CEE0F2. GoldenRing (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• You're not supposed to do that, and you'll get slapped down by one of the template wizards for even suggesting it.

Back around 2012, templates were converted to Lua. If you want to move these templates (and they represent a great resource for either setting up a wiki, or for porting WP content to another wiki) then you either need to have Lua available, or to use templates versions from around 2012. At which point you discover loads of holes, where templates that were no longer required have been deleted. Despite there being no advantage to doing so.

When I went through this myself, and found just the same problem, I was warned off and accused of "stealing" WP content (newsflash: the templates are under a free licence, same as the content corpus).

Everything that's wrong with WP: the Template: namespace has it even worse 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll think about that... stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirected flags...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can anybody tell me whether this is OK? Ive CSD'd two of them, but there's a ton of them. If not OK, can anybody nuke that shit? Kleuske (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• It is standard practice to redirect emoji to articles about the subject of the emoji. The two redirects you tagged for speedy deletion are the flags of Kaluga Oblast and Khakassia, and they redirect to the articles about their flags. Before you bring something up at AN/I and call an editor’s work “shit” how about you contact the editor first to ask what is going on. Gorobay (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Gorobay Yeah, I think Kleuske 's wrong to call your work "shit", however, I disagree with using Emojii's as a redirect, just so you know, this is what they look like on my computer https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%F0%9F%8F%B4%F3%A0%81%A4%F3%A0%81%A5%F3%A0%81%A2%F3%A0%81%B9%F3%A0%81%BF&oldid=791345240 . This doesn't seem to be useful, nor would anyone really type this in. I , honestly, would have nominated them for deletion as unnecessary. It kinda looks like something Neelix would have pulled, to be honest.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

First “shit”, and now “Neelix”? This is outrageous! (I’m kidding.) Various emoji have been proposed for deletion (WP:REMOJI) and there has been consensus to keep them, except where there is no clear target. Emoji are generally entered using an emoji picker palette, not by typing percent-encoded UTF-8: people who can see them as flags will not be confused, and people who see them as gobbledygook won’t search for them in the first place, so I don’t think they are a problem. For more information about subregion flag emoji, see (for example) http://emojipedia.org/flag-for-england/.

The deletion nominations said that the two redirects (now deleted) were typos. That doesn’t make sense. They are obscure emoji but they are perfectly valid according to UTS #51. I won’t restore them before this is resolved, of course, but they shouldn’t have been speedied like that. Gorobay (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, "shit" was uncalled for, and I apoligize, but I only meant it as a vernacular synonym for "stuff". It was not intended as a comment on your work. Kleuske (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User commting disruptive editing on Jurassic World: Fallen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user name Aaimran has removed a sourced material of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom twice, once under the IP address 47.185.217.3. This is what the user said to me on my talk page.

"First of all, I was not vandalizing Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I was just doing what I thought was necessary. No need to tell everybody what the actors were doing in the ocean. No need to spoil the news."

But there is no rule for spoilers and the one he kept removing is source material. Someone might want to do something about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I linked the guidelines and gave a medium duty warning. For now, I think that is enough. They are new, they need to learn these things. Linking to the policy on their talk page is often a good way to do it. Then, they can be held responsible for knowing (or they should have known) and they can't claim ignorance because you've politely linked the relevant guideline or policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dennis Brown and his handling of the situation. Given that this has only occurred twice (1, 2), we need to understand that this user is new and doesn't yet know or understand the many rules, policies, and guidelines that Wikipedia has. Given this fact, the edits appear to be good faith attempts more than it does blatant vandalism. As Dennis Brown said above, this is a situation where we should try to help and educate the user - not chase them away with administrative action ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. That was a good way to handle the situation and that user may have not known the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. But we had many users who came to Wikipedia to vandalize, not to contribute the encyclopedia of it and I've seen too many of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

HA! Trust me, I know what you mean... seriously :-P. We just need to remember to assume good faith. If the edits could be considered good faith attempts to make changes and by a new user whose just not familiar with our policies and guidelines - we need to default to this assumption and attempt to help users. If things turn sour from there, then we at least tried, and we did the right thing by offering to help ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean. But you guys might want to look what Aaimran said to me on my talk page from the user's contributions and diffs 1 and 2. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That ties into what was said earlier. It's not like he called you an asshat, he is just arguing his point, but he is arguing from a position of ignorance, not stupidity. That is why I have twice now gone to his talk page, offering links and help in a calm manner. The first was a strong but polite note, that got his attention. The second post was directing him to getting help in learning about how we do things. We fight ignorance with information. Or at least we try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sioux City related issue

Please look at Sioux City Iowa page. User with IP added content consistently reversed by another user. IP got blocked. Can you please unlock IP so that she can continue to participate in what may be a valid discussion. The issue is that the page may be professionally managed -- dissenters have been either driven away or blocked from this page before. 24.217.216.63 (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a mess. Material was moved from the talk page to an archive and then un-archived by an IP. I'm re-vetting the archiving and keeping anything in the archive that wasn't active in the last 30 days. Then I'll look at the active discussions and article history. —C.Fred (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at many of the talk page contributions by 2600:6c40:1800:1f39:ec49:9398:4f0a:ef7f (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The last several could easily be viewed as harassment. The very last one before their block was so severe that an oversighter removed it entirely from history. Based on that, the block should stand. Talk page discussions must remain civil and without baseless allegations against other users. —C.Fred (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Harassment might be an overstatement. It is if one applies WP:AGF. Either way though, shouldn't there at least have been a mention on their talk page before a block? What was the last "severe" comment? It's difficult to opine, with out any info. Other comments seem pretty mild. And the IP's case does seem to have substance. There does seem to be a consistent attempt to remove any negative content about Sioux City - which seems ironic given how dreadful the place sounds in the lede, with that stuff never mentioned again. Also, why is the page locked to all editing, if the issue is solely IP-related? Though clearly the page needs work, there are most lists than text. Half the page is a list of notable people from Sioux City - gosh, there seem to be more notable people per capita (non of which I've heard of) from Sioux City than New York City! I'm surprised there isn't a list of parking lots. There's a note in the photo caption that the downtown is Indigenous, but not other relevant mention of First Nations in the article. Nfitz (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm the harassed party here, although I would term it extremely bad faith editing. I've been repeatedly accused of paid editing by the blocked IP and the block was completely in order. The editor immediately above is so far off base (in multiple threads I might add) that his comments can be safely discounted. The OP in this thread seems to be calling for a block review of User:Ks0stm's block and he should be notified. I'm not convinced that all the IPs involved here are not either meat or sock puppets, but there is obviously no way to show that. There's been no substantive discussion since my initial post at the talk page, and none of the named editors have weighed in. Hopefully, this thread will bring more participants to the thread. I'd say the latest comment there from the editor in the 2600 IPv6 range is most likely block evasion, but I'll gladly leave that for those with the right skill set to decide. I cannot blame the other editors there for running to the hills. If the range blocked IPv6 editor comes back with the same attitude, I'll be joining them. --John from Idegon (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The good news I suppose, is that as far as I recall, the hills around Sioux City are loess, and quite close to town. Quite different geology than I'm used to. But if they are in the hills, it's not far to return from. :) Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Having run for the hills myself (all the way back to Calnevari, south of Idegon), to put this in perspective for newcomers, a major element of the dispute arose from the IP(s)'s insistence on adding non-WP:RS/potential WP:OR, certainly WP:UNDUE, ultimately unencyclopedic content to the article regarding... wait for it... a speed trap on the interstate highway. The IP(s) seemed to believe this information demonstrated that Sioux City was deriving a significant percentage of city revenue unfairly off the backs of out-of-staters cited for speeding through town, that Wikipedia was bound to mention same in coverage of Sioux City, and anyone who removed the expose must be a paid shill for the city. I salute User:John from Idegon's resilience in the face of exactly the kind of irrational minutiae-fixated abuse that I dread stirring up every time I hit the "revert" button. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The IPv4 address above and the blocked IPv6 range both belong to the same ISP in the same city, so with this request, it's abundantly clear that they're the same person. I've blocked the IPv4 for evading the existing block. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually live in Sioux City. Notable people from Sioux City does not mean much when they have to leave the city to be anything. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings

HoldenV8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed a lot to rugby league articles he was previously blocked in April 2016 by @Michig: for persistent addition of adding uncited material. since that time, Holden's citations have improved but has gone back to this pattern of adding uncited material. I gave a warning in May 2017 [176] and a final warning in June citing 3 examples of uncited material. [177]. despite warnings, Holden persists, adding this today. it's got to the point of blatant disregard of WP rules. LibStar (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I want that user Aaimran and his IP address 47.185.217.3 banned. That user has been harassing me from those accounts ever since I reverted his edits on Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and I don't want even say to him because he's trying to provoke me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide evidence for your claims. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I had a quick look through the reported party's contributions and found this. The reported party might want to read WP:SPOILER. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see you at ANI, Amauri ;P Anyways... I have put the article on my watchlist. I'll be on the look out for more violations about spoilers. As for the supposed harrasment, I wouldn't call 4 edits on a user's talk page (unless reverting in an edit war) harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Brown gave that user a warning and posted WP:SPOILER on his talk page, which he is clearly ignoring and is being hostel towards me for reverting his edits & harassing me. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, their "Lord" messages are odd, but I don't see the harrasment. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 06:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

He used his IP address 47.185.217.3 at me too. I must advise that he should not harass me from both his account and the IP address. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also don't see what would constitute harassment by the reported user and the IP above. The talk page edits made by the user (other than this one) appear to be attempts to explain their rationale, albeit the rationale isn't a sufficient one. I believe that Dennis Brown did the proper thing already; he left a message on the user's talk page and provided the relevant guidelines so that they'll learn and understand. Sure, the talk page messages seem like this person was defending a person opinion or belief, but we should try and educate them regardless. If disruption continues, we'll at least know that we attempted to be cordial and message the user and such attempts were ignored. I think we should leave things at that for now, and keep an eye out. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur, although I'm always a bit concerned when editors justify their actions with the deity of their choice [178]. A lot of problems in the world are based on that same excuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but if we could figure out which edits God prefers, it would take a big load off Arbcom. EEng 13:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have the hierarchy slightly wrong there, EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC) ,

Well, maybe God is on ArbCom? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I recall deliberately not voting for him after that three day blocking in a tomb business. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was the same. I was concerned about the unconventional penalties he wanted to introduce for policy violations.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

His attitude at me and how he justifies his actions is not excusable in my opinion. I don't think he even read WP:SPOILERS clearly. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This does not exactly constitute harassment. I am not an admin, so my knowledge is pretty basic with stuff like this. As Oshwah and Dennis Brown have indicated, it's not what you claim. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think he is just a bit clueless and lost. I linked him over to the Teahouse. We will see. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia values harassment free environments yet doesn't have a bock per User email function AFAICT, should the whole load of manual coping (or clue coping) be dumped on an editor? Technology exists, though priorities vary. Neonorange (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This isn't harassment, it is a clueless but (I think) well meaning editor. WP:AGF until there is a reason to not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just found out he/she will not be editing Wikipedia anymore on his talk page. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm a he, goddamn it. Aaimran (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks like Aaimran has reverted the edits on his talk page as you can see in the diff here. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I don't know if Aaimran's message is concerning? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just now saw this. WP:EMERGENCY has the proper guidance, even if you don't think it is serious. I've already taken the appropriate action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undisclosed paid editing by User: Khaled Abolaynain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user is advertising his service to help people on various freelancing websites, including deletion discussion. His MO is help and demand payment or result in a negative outcome. Based on his LinkedIn and Upwork profile, he has written a couple of articles and none of them were declared to be paid.

• He has also made private his Upwork page but searching his username on Google will be enough to reveal that he has an Upwork profile that advertise his paid services but he has not declared his payments ever once.

Hsypark (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

These are very serious accusations. Can you substantiate via diffs the alleged blackmail? Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hsypark: Note my question above and I have another one for you. I note from your contributions that you are a new editor, and that your contribs have been largely confined to two fairly obscure commercial subjects. A totally friendly query: are you a paid editor? Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: What are diffs? Did you see those links? And no, I am not paid. I have contributed multiple edits to other articles as well such as Uber and Lee Hsien Loong. I chose to write about errund because I have read their news and used their service and am extremely happy with it and I know a person working there.Hsypark (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hsypark: Please email ArbCom with your concerns: [email protected] Please do not continue this discussion on this forum, and do not provide links on Wikipedia to what you feel may be their real life accounts without their permission, or their having previously done so on Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Similar statements have been made, a couple with similar links posted, by the same editor on multiple pages today besides this noticeboard: [179]; [180]; [181]. If this rises to the level of WP:OUTING that needs to be oversighted, those pages should be addressed as well. TJRC (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've RevDel'ed one of the threads, others got the rest I think. You really can't make those kinds of claims publicly here, Hsypark, true or not. As SilkTork told you, email evidence to [email protected] and they will take it from there. Please don't leave messages like that in the future, just contact ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kinuko Y. Craft spam

An anonymous editor has been adding Category:Picture books by Kinuko Y. Craft and other related incorrect information to various articles on novels where Craft drew the cover art. See: [182][183], etc. (check the cat for more - too many to list). For most of these, the "picture book" category is incorrect, as is adding Craft in the other places. The editor appears to be jumping IPs, so I thought listing specific users or notifying them would be pointless. Advice? I cleaned up one or two, but I wasn't sure how to handle the bulk. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider this withdrawn. As the problem hasn't been persistent, I just cleaned it up myself. None of the novels in the category appeared to actually be picture books at all. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Another GNAA sock

Resolved

 – Sock blocked.Lone edit reverted.Page protected.Winged Blades ^Godric 06:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Becometheflower is creating GNAA disruption. Please stop this person and reverse the damage. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If you know the account of the suspected sockmaster, you may take the case to WP:SPI. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I know the SPI process. I'm looking for administrator action, not advice from others. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see that you got your answer now that the user is blocked for LTA. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocking the sock is just the start. Reversing all of their edits is the next step. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User continues to remove sourced material

Hello,

Joobo (talk · contribs) doesn't stop whitewashing the article on Germany's far-right politician Frauke Petry by removing the well-sourced assertion that Petry cited German law wrongly; a sample edit is this one. Explaining the mistake to the user has no effect; instead, Joobo falsely states that the inclusion of such material may violate WP:BLP (naturally without citing the specific guideline which my edits would go against, since such does not exist). A strategy is deployed which I met among various WP users who seemed to have a political inclination, namely a mass of meaningless verbal garbage is produced which is then taken to be an argument, even though it does not make logical sense. On the grounds of that, the article is then being reverted, with a remark to check the talk page (or whatever page it was deposited on) for a reason.

I should mention that this user has been noted for strange behaviour before, see for instance here. --Mathmensch (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I would like to add that said user edits the Wikipedia full-time as it seems (see Special:Contributions/Joobo). --Mathmensch (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive346#User:Joobo.2C_User:_Peter1170:_reported_by_User:Nagle_.28Result:_Both_warned.29 --Mathmensch (talk) 11:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The BLP-claim is bogus (article statemen is sourced to FAZ) and seems to be a substitute for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kleuske (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• I will comment on this whole situation amply to give a broad and detailed overview of the situation.

Firstly, I never had any contact with the user Mathmensch before the quarrel at the BLP of Frauke Petry occured. By reverting the edit I followed the necessity of WP:BLPREMOVE. However, it is incessantly argued by the opposite that the content would be sourced and that reverting it would be "bogus" as user Kleuske now wants to state. I gave already detailed explanation to why (here on the BLP talk) the phrasing is not accurate and needs to be removed respectively rewritten as I did. It is about a hypothetical legal application of a law. The statement by the BLP cannot be ultimately labeled as "false" simply as under such circumstance statements can neither be qualified as right nor as wrong in an ultimate definition. This more detailed argumentation by me was basically ignored on the talk, simply by once again pointing out to the "source" which was claimed to be absolutely sufficient. My hint that the source also only evaluates the possibility of a wrong legal statement by Petry was simply ignored as well.

It seems that Mathmensch cherishes personally negative views on this BLP as well as on others he might categorize as morally unfit, why? Mathmensch wrote on my talkpage concerning a discussion with me and another user regarding the article Donald Trump this. It was about a revert by me which was adequate, explained and backed by other users on the main talkpage of the concerned article (see), however Mathmensch seemed to have a problem with this and calling it a "monarchy" like, weeks after the situation was already handled. He was/is obviously angry with the position by me and other users about the question of the inclusion of the point which was raised in the talk. To highlight the antipathy of Mathmensch for particular subjects respectiveley his approach to editing and other users a simple look on his user page is enough to read this:

 "I decided to put this up since there may be U.S. citizens here, who chose Donald Trump as their president.
 I have a foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised: Namely those who really think they're superior because of their race or ancestry. If I find out you think that way, I will react properly.
 I would like to express my solidarity with all Jewish, African-American, Hispanic and even Muslim citizens of the U.S. (although I am critical of all religions, including Islam). I am a white German, but I don't feel particularly superior to anybody else (at least not on the grounds of race), and I want to live without racism. I do not want to be associated with bigots of my people who are cruel and idiotic.
 I am sick and tired of seeing black people being ashamed because they are black. The greatest pianist of all times was black. The greatest living mathematician is an ethnic Chinese, while the greatest mathematician of all times was Jewish." 

This user apparently in any case he feels someone edits against his personal beliefs is automatically somehow against "him" or Wikipedia etc. will start to act inappropriately. He has as he says "foolproof criterion to sort out who is morally or intellectually compromised [...] If I find out you think that way, I will react properly." These statements really speak for themselves.

Furthermore I also like to point out to Matmenschs linking to an ongoing discussion on an admins talk me being involved he apparently found out by checking my history. The discussion was basically most likely initiated due to a misunderstanding of another user who viewed some of my edits and got misleading impressions. After i gave simple and detailed explanation concerning the edits brought up nothing anymore happened or was complained, neither by the original user who raised the point at the talk nor by the admin himself. It was eventually just about the behavior regarding me and the other user of the situation. Now Mathmensch for whatever reason jumped on the train at the discussion again without even trying to understand of what the situation there was actually about. Apparently he saw my user name and the topic and immediately tried to defame me, caliming out of nowhere I would be "counter-productive". Now Mathmensch is trying to scratch all kinds of apparent negative stuff together to portray myself in a somewhat bad light. That is also highlighted by the incomprehensible point by him that I would be editing "Wikipedia full-time". All my edits are reasonably explained, if needed sourced and adequate to WP standards and criterias. Any minor disputes, that naturally occur on Wikipedia are absolutely common and without any consequence so far since my unblock. Actually -

it looks like the same is tried to be done here once again as already it was some time ago when another user violated WP guidelines. It came to a dispute also at the ANI- and me and other users explained our ratio behind the reverts we did — finally it was being ruled in favor for me/us and against the other user, who in a similar nasty way tried to link aspects together and claim of POV etc. without any ground, simply as an automatic anthipathy occured due to content disagreements. Mathmensch has apparently an issue with me, and now wants an "admin become active in this case?" in order to "... react properly". This is everything but acceptable WP:Civil behavior.

It rather looks that Mathmensch, by reading his user page entry, has some very strong personal beliefs, and in any case something goes against that he is acting just like he does here. I hereby urge for an adequate solution to this absolute inappropriate behavior of Mathmensch as well as a review of the situation on the concerned page of Frauke Petry as the now by Kleuske reintroduced phrase of "false" is wrong and violates BLP rights, as the statement by Petry technically never can be labeled as "right" nor "false". --Joobo (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: I put an ANI notice on the user's talk page, but it has been removed shortly after it was placed there. --Mathmensch (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, after I was noticed and I myself recognized the request here I removed it, so what now?--Joobo (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Discuss it on the appropriate talk-page? Just a suggestion... Kleuske (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes... The statement in question was sourced to an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which is, for all intents and purposes, a reliable source, as required by WP:BLP. Hence the revert. Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

As I already pointed out repeatedly, it is not that the taken source it not "realiable". What was written in it was meant like that. It is simply a classic case of Non sequitur. You technically cannot call this statement as ultimately "wrong", but also not as ultimately "right". However, such a definite application was done — this is inaccurate and violates BLP.--Joobo (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a clear false claim. Quote Petry, as cited in the FAZ article: "So steht es im Gesetz." (So the law says.) - Factually wrong, hence a false claim. Current phrasing seems correct. (I did chuck out a doubled "falsely" though, that seemed a bit clumsy). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Elmidae: Wrong. Classic case of non sequitur as already pointed out. What she said is neither right or wrong. It all comes down to the actual situation. I gave the example on the talk with the police officer. If you say " A police officer can kill a person, that is what the law says" - This statement can be right and wrong at the same time. It depends on the actual circumstance, hence simply saying the statement would be "false" or "correct" is inaccurate. The mentioned FAZ article is merely evaluating her statement but has no legal analytical position to determine an ultimate "false" or "right" to it. That is why "possbly" is the correct term used there - and not "false" (or "right"). --Joobo (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Her statement was "The law mandates this." This is not the case, no matter how much you wiggle. And it's quite beside the point; the only people frantically scrambling for a "possibly technically correct if you squint just so" interpretation are her party and assorted heavily invested individuals, while the independent press and independent experts were pretty much unanimous in their assessment. It is not Wikipedia's conclusion to draw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong again. You cannot say this is "not the case" - as a law is existing and stating for certain action. Simply stick to the perfect analogy of the example of the "police officer". Then you see that saying it is ulimately "right" or "false" is wrong itself. You simply personally put yourself on the same side of argumentation as how it was done in the news article, yet that does not change the fact that the statement technically never can be labeled as right or false. In particular in contnental european law systems with its Civil law those statements in most cases always have to be referred to actual situations which was not done here but a general statement was given. Bottom line is still the same. The statement only "possibly" is against the law as no actual case is given - hence saying it is in general "false" is merely one particular reading but has no universal validity.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There are also problematic edits regarding Immigration to Germany, such as this one, where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011. --Mathmensch (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That's two years ago and stale. Digging up dirt is not productive nor conducive to any resolution. Discuss the issue at hand instead. Kleuske (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

To the contrary, the edit cited above supports the viewpoint that the given user displays the long-term behaviour of editing in a non-neutral manner, which seems to be of direct relevance. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

It is, to put it mildly, unbelievable in what an inconsiderate manner and how recklessly it is pointed out to edits I did 2 years ago — and you Mathmensch blatantly lie about it. You write "where a completely unsourced statement was included into the article; Joobo claimed that in 2014, there were 8 million foreigners in Germany, whereas the source only gives numbers for the year 2011." The source I included was from 2015 and published by a German major newspaper ([184]). The newsarticle stated the number of migrants in the Federal Republic of Germany for the year 2014 according to official numbers of the federal register; it was not as you fallaciously claim from 2011 and the number used was also correct. This blatant lying is qualified as a Personal attack under Wiki policy as it states Personal attacks are but not limited to: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." --Joobo (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I mixed up the difflinks. I meant this edit. --Mathmensch (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Possibly it is also adequate to look at a more recent example. --Mathmensch (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joobo now accused me of doing "wikihounding" despite having been alerted not to do so by an admin. --Mathmensch (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

You ever heard about something called giving a named reference? Apparently not. If you check the diff you gave here you would see that I included the source "< ref name="SZ" / >". So, I supplied the source for the number I included. The other source was referring to the distribution. You are either completely oblivious to Wikipedia editing, or once again blatantly lying about my actions. Regarding your last sentence of you - the admin referred to the situation between me and another user, not between you and me. The admin was right that my mentioning of Wikihounding was incorrect in the case between me an the other user. Yet, in this case you are without a doubt hounding, as you follow my talk page, edit there, follow my edit history and engage in the actions of those concerned articles. I give you one advice, stop doing what you do here as it just pulls you down more and more.--Joobo (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

A deletion of an entire section seems inappropriate to me. --Mathmensch (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This ANI is still in ongoing. Unless no admin has taken action I advise you to stop engaging in any articles I am involved in, same as I am not engaging in any article you are involved in other than the BLP of initial concern. Do not make this a bigger quarrel than it already is.--Joobo (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Content dispute. Just because someone can be reliably sourced does not mean it is required to have it in an article. Seek consensus on the talkpage. If someone has a credible allegation that Joobo has systematically been whitewashing this, more evidence will be required than one diff from a couple of years ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I mentioned this before and am repeating here.

Joobo was blocked indefinitely back in January 2016 for harassing other people and personal attacks concerning List of Islamist terrorist attacks and Immigration to Germany, per this ANI thread.

They went from here to de-wiki, where they were blocked 7 times during 2016 and early 2017 per their block log there for disrupting topics related to politics. Block #7 was in Feb 2017 for 5 days per this report there, related to pro-Trump (including Melania), anti-Obama (including Michelle) POV_pushing, if I am reading the translation correctly. Block #6 was for 3 days for edit warring against 3 other users on the Alternative for Germany article there, per this report - Joobo was trying to remove sourced content about the party being anti-feminist (e.g diff). You get the point.

They gave up on de-WP and came back here to request an unblock in March 2017, and were unblocked on a WP:ROPE basis by User:PhilKnight per this thread on their Talk page. It does not appear that PhilKnight looked at their behavior in other projects during the time they were indeffed here (which is an easy thing to omit, and Joobo did not mention it either)

Where I got frustrated with them was their efforts to whitewash the Alternative for Germany and German nationalism article:

• Talk:Alternative for Germany-- (contribs there) where you will see that Joobo argued in lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood making the bizarre, strawman argument that German nationalism is the same thing as Pan-Germanism and so of course the party cannot be German nationalist, because the AfD does not advocate for taking new territories of german speaking areas in Europe. (oy). See diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, etc This is just repeating an unsupported distortion, and providing no sources to support that bizarre definition.
• [185] to the German nationalism article, which was all edit warring removal in support of the now-vanished Hayek/Wormwood, which somehow stopped when Wormwood vanished a month ago and then restarted when Hayek/Wormwood briefly re-emerged as you can see in the history. Lockstep with Hayek/Wormwood.
• contribs at German natioanlism talk page where you will find nothing meaningful from them justifying their removal of content - the individual diffs:
  • diff It is fairly questionable if "german nationalism" is viewed as taboo as put in the introduction.... (oy. just oy)
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff -- nothing about content
  • diff series -- nothing about content

And the ongoing effort by Joobo to completely remove mention of the Alt-right as a faction in the republican party per the history? This is beyond a content dispute, and right down the middle of the ongoing problem with their behavior. Just raw POV pushing with no basis in policy, but rather just making up reasons.

In my view, the lifting of the indef was unwise, as Joobo just carried their disruption to our German sister project, and came back to continue the bad behavior here in the topics in which they are disruptive - just adding noise and personal attack, and not helping build quality content in those areas. I still suggest minimally topic banning them from anything related to contemporary populism, immigration, or terrorism at minimum, or just re-placing the indef at maximum. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not even read all your ranting here Jytdog as just by browsing your text it appears to be the exact same type of nasty defamation you did couple of weeks ago in the other ANI - when eventually you were the one being told to be wrong with receiving a harsh warning. Well, at least you had one "achievement" going for you — one other editor gave up on this project partly due to your months long going incredible behavior. Now you have even the attitude to give examples of the edits I made in the article of "German Nationalism" albeit(!) you were the one editing there to your favour in order to influence an ongoing RfC. This is incredible once again - but it would have been too nice to see you change in this way or you having at least some kind of insight or reflection. You pull the (really exact) same kinds of points here as you did back in the former ANI - pointing out to the completely unrelated "sister"-project and giving edit diffs not showing anything - even when put in context - showing that you behaved wrong (either you believe the admins are stupid or you are oblivious to what you write here). One can see obvious parallels in how and what you write here and what Mathmensch wrote. Both of you have very strong subjective views on certain issues. In case you get the slightest feeling someone is against that view or would edit against that you start to do everything to obstruct the other editor - getting involved in my (possibly also other editors) various WP edits - ranting on the talkpage - threatening with ANIs - immediately claiming POV in everything and everywhere without even trying to understand the other persons viewpoint - using terms as "advocating" or "whitewashing" - and when finally an ANI is ongoing even contintuing with that and simply lying in the ANI with giving flawed edit diffs that show absolutely nothing. Not much more needs to be added on all of that.--Joobo (talk) 08:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes I acknowledged and cited my former posting, and there was no "harsh warning" (the close is here); you are again just making things up to justify your POV pushing. Your ongoing edits at Republican party factions are unjustifiable POV pushing and you are here arguing that your behavior is just fine, with no awareness that you were unblocked only per WP:ROPE. Pinging User:Dennis Brown; this is pretty much exactly where I expected we would be now, where Joobo has continued and indeed feels emboldened to continue the behavior that led to their indef here and their several blocks at de-WP while they were indeffed here. When does the ROPE under which they were unblocked reach its end? Jytdog (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging User: Drmies who reviewed the unblock, and User:PhilKnight who did the unblock. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You believe POV in everything you see and do not agree with to 100% - plain simple as that. It seems so incredible hard for you to comprehend that merely because other editors are editing something you would not edit yourself, are reverting something by you (not even everything or the most of it, just anything at all) or are using arguments you do not agree with (or you do not even attempt to understand) that there is absolutely nothing behind and no "POV" is existing. It looks like the exact same pattern as by Mathmensch when initiating this ANI request - there are simply other editors with a different opinion and it is an instant battleground. You do not even listen to arguments, you do not talk in any civil manner, you do not discuss, you do not look for any consensus you basically do not do anything else than what was mentioned already extensively in the former ANI. You see someone you believe is editing not as you would and voilá "POV!" - "whitewashing!" - "the gang"(as you liked to label it some time ago) etc. Everyone can make the own conclusion about that. As already pointed out, I have nothing to hide on no single edit. However your edits, especially regarding those in the article of German Nationalism, were more than evidently showing what motive were there when out of a sudden you started to edit the page while the RfC was still ongoing and against your favour. That is why I am even more surprised that you are bringing this up here and truly believe this would help your case in any way, but that is your decision. Not much more needs to be said on this one, especially as this ANI request was initiated by Mathmensch and you now simply try to jump in and see your opportunity to finally get another user (now it is me apperently) out who you do not like for minor visceral personal motives. --Joobo (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Nope, that was just a bunch of unsubstantiated claims including personal attacks. That is how you operate across WP, per the the diffs provided by me and others above, and it is not OK here nor in de-WP. That is why you were indeffed here a year and a half ago, then blocked 7 times in a single year at de-WP, and why you should be reblocked here. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:PhilKnight unblocked per ROPE; I'm satisfied that this rope is not any longer. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have blocked Joobo for an indefinite period of time for a number of issues, which are spelled out on this talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. It is nice to assume good faith and bend over backwards, etc. However, in some cases that approach is very detrimental to the community and firm action is required, as here. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Link hijack issue

Resolved

 – All cleaned up -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. We had a few reports at OTRS overnight of link hijacking involving the site GNAA.press, including on the Amazon.com and Comcast articles. See also this and this, plus this and this on Twitter (thanks to Samwalton9 for finding these links). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this was fixed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that was it. It was reported above in the #Another GNAA sock section above. I've also blacklisted the link. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. I suspected it was related, but couldn't tell that it was exactly the same issue because of the revision deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey All

Basically all nearly 1,000 of these articles need to be refreshed for the issue to be resolved completely.[186]

The malicious code can be seen here

Is there an easy way to do this? By bot to make a nul edit? I remember someone mentioning a way to force pages to refresh? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay checked some more and it appears to be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of this which I believe I mentioned recently in a discussion we were both involved in. (edit, I lie, it was here and I was confusing you with Iridescent) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the vandalism used here the common kind for this LTA? If so we can use the spam blacklist and/or an abuse filter to stop it. Sam Walton (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It happens from time to time (in various forms) - GNAA have been trying to vandalise Wikipedia for more than a decade. I've blacklisted this link, but there should be a template filter around somewhere which also tackles it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a few deleted filters, but Filters 139 and 740 would be the ones to look at. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Chernobog95...again

It seems as though Chernobog95 has not learned his lesson on his actions the last time he was reported onto here. He continues to try to insert/spam controversial information regarding the Hwasong-14 on all pages that mention it. He attempts to insert this information by means of spamming as many as 7 links, some of which are unreliable and/or copyrighted, just to "prove" one tiny piece of information. He takes his information WAY too seriously, inserting the "theoretical" range rather than the confirmed range, which he refers to as "outdated". The sources only suggest that the missile has a maximum range of what he specifies (at first 8,000 km., then 9,700 km., and finally 10,000 km.), but he inserts this information as though he is suggesting that it is the confirmed range. He has attacked several users over the last week+ alone, calling four users (myself included), insults such as "Unprofessional", "Hypocritical", "Preferring Outdated Information", and even criticizing us for defending other users over just one measly piece of information that is not confirmed. In addition, he has admitted on the revision history for North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, that he was intentionally edit-warring and violated the 3RR just to get the information that he wants. He has violated a number of rules since he began editing these particular pages. He has been blocked once, for 31 hours, but he continues to make these edits after being given both the final warning and the warning given after the initial block. SamaranEmerald (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I was blocked for "unsourced/poorly sourced" information for placing references from sources used extensively by wikipedia which were unjustifiedly removed for reasons such as "unreliable sources" and "seems copyrighted" despite extensive use on wikipedia. Information which I placed are labeled as controversial not because they are not confirmed since all ranges for are theoretical as SamaranEmerald takes initial theoretical estimate of its range as confirmed. It is due to denial of more recent by experts/veterans in missile technology who in latest arms control wonk podcast complained about inaccuracies of wikipedia and denial involving range of Hwasong-14. SamaranEmerald for example claimed in his reverting previously that sources I used were unreliable which included 38 North. I decided to restrain from criticism which is mislabeled as attacking/insults for pointing out their actions. Andy Dingley restored couple of my edits which I am thankful for such support. Chernobog95 (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this closely and I have not yet had time to study the sources adequately to know who is right here. But tonight we have this unedifying set of removals: 97.43.128.38 (talk · contribs) which I was busy reverting myself, although Chernobog95 beat me to most of them. This was followed by similar pushes from 74.134.135.109 (talk · contribs).

I cannot say that any one set of edits is better than another here, as that's a hard task in evaluating credibility in a very grey area and I've had no time to do so. But Chernobog95 is far from the only editor involved here, and at least two IPs are pushing clear POVs in an unacceptable, unexplained and unsupported manner.

Did I really wake up for just this? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

All I did was placing more recent information as most/majority of references are from sources that are heavily referenced in wikipedia, I did my research to be confident in using and really annoyed at excuses that were used to remove it. We already went through this and he had time to prove it which he did not for previous one on this AN/I that he made. Andy, today is not your lucky day apparently. :-/ Chernobog95 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• You know what, I am getting tired of both you AND SamaranEmerald. Both of you make strong points to your causes, but fighting each other over something such as a disputed missile range is not how you two should settle page disputes. Wikipedia has 31+ million users, and a good portion of them are either vandals or just fight over the stupidest things. Samara (if you don't mind me calling you that), I did initially support your side of the argument, but after seeing what you did over the time, I have grown more and more skeptical of my standing, and when quiet for several days to think about my new approach before returning just the other day. And now, like Andy, I am on neutral ground now, and I am no longer supporting your objective of proving Chernobog95 wrong. As for you Chernobog95, I have looked over your sources, and I have noticed that your source for 38 north is legitimate, and thus reliable; however, one of sources is in fact a copyright infringement while another is in fact not reliable under WP:RS because it contains original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Ultimately though, but of you are acting like a bunch of childish users, fighting as though both of you are in a sibling rivalry, and thus, the two of you are not, I repeat not assuming good faith. If you ask me, the best way to settle this conflict is to just find common ground, and make a compromise of some sort, something you Chernobog95 attempted to try before, right? --Hornetzilla78 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

By copyrighted you mean the diplomat? Why is there issue referencing just by link? Isn't NK News allowed/used extensively? The original research you mean by Norbert Brugge is referenced/used by NTI, also Jeffrey Lewis of Arms Control Wonk and contributor to 38 North seriously considered his opinion about Hwasong-13's design. Yes, I attempted compromise and was denied. Chernobog95 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

North Korea has a long history of making exaggerated claims in its news broadcasts. For example, have you heard the story about former North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il being born in a similar fashion to that of Jesus? Well that is often believed by many North Koreans to be true, but by the rest of the world, it is nothing more than a laughing joke, in fact, a Soviet officer actually made an actual claim that he was actually born more naturally in a Soviet camp in the late 1940s. In addition, a couple of years ago, they made a controversial claim that they had found evidence of the existence of a mythological horse similar to a unicorn. As for the missiles, many of their test they have conducted in the past have been claimed by them to be successful, however experts from South Korea and America researched the test and many of them where actually failures. There's a lot of silly claims that they have made over the years, you can look it up thought out the internet. Hornetzilla78 (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

South Korea has a long history of making exaggerated claims in its news/media based on rumours and parodies while you should have checked Media coverage of North Korea article, I recommend you to read it as Unicorn claim is disproven as false among other claims be it parodies taken seriously to misinformation by National Intelligence Service of South Korea. Your reply to mine does not make sense by going off-topic about a subject you have now demostrated that you know little to nothing, meaning you are uninformed and misinformed by your belief in supposed claim of unicorn discovery by them when that was proven false as it involved Gogukoryo kingdom. I can not have any trust in you with that kind of lack of knowledge and political bias that you have demostrated as it seems that your reply to mine is that of denial about the missile. You should check last two podcasts by Arms Control Wonk to inform yourself rather than be in state of ignorance. Chernobog95 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I will be willing to compromise with Chernobog95 and allow some of his edits, on the condition he accepts some form of proposal in return. SamaranEmerald (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That solely depends on your suggestion, though I find it unlikely involving range thus for now listen to two latest arms control wonk podcasts as it is informative/educational. 6700km estimate is declared flawed by David Wright who made it. To be honest we should wait for a more detailed analysis, Jeffrey Lewis believes it might be capable of hitting New York based on detailed simulation. Today some new information surfaced up about 2nd stage burning up close to 5 minutes thus might involve just verniers. Latest estimates all put maximum range 9500km and over. Chernobog95 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Theroized information ≠ Confirmed information, and even if the estimates from these sources are made by experts, they are not ultimately confirmed, which is what I am trying to prove to you. What I want to see is the use of information that is true, not information that is thought to be true, which is why I reverted your edits. The sources you used, while I don't doubt by your persistence that they could be reliable, are only a small collection of sources describing the supposed range. I'll make you a deal, I'll allow you to insert your information in some of the areas you want it to be inserted, but you cannot treat it like it is fact, thus you must state a form of counter-evidence. One area you could do this is at the description of North Koreas confirmed and alleged missiles. If you notice the description about the Taepodong-2 on North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, it states that the estimated range of that missile is between "4500 km. to 10000 km.", but notes that most sources only put it at only "6700 km." What you could do is put the the estimated range (theorized of course), on the description about the Hwasong-14 as being "between 4,200 to 10,000 km." but that most sources put it at only 6,700 km. - 8,000 km., as that is what the majority sources across the web cite, whether based off of an expert or not. In addition, on the page about the missile itself, you could put your findings in the description box below about the missile supposed range, but you must state in some way that it is only an estimation or a theory, not a confirmed fact of reality, I will not stop you from editing that. SamaranEmerald (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to decline as I already stated previously numerously about the range and your double standards involving that as I have to yet again repeat it to you. David Wright is the source of 6700km range estimate that was referenced by media early on which he later one acknowledged that he did not take into account Earth's orbit and that missile would have flown farther thus that (theoretical)estimate of 6700km is unreliable that you tried or still are trying to force as confirmed as you talk about sources(media) who reference his estimation thus it is echo chamber thus it is unreliable to rely on multiple sources referencing a single source. Again, all estimates are theoretical and there are three sources that estimate range well over 9000km as maximum, all 9500 and above. John Schilling increased his estimate of 8000km to 9700km, you are forcing his older estimate and estimate of David Wright who noted serious flaws in his initial estimate. I put theoretical as compromise and is accurate description of all range estimates for it while also tolerated out dated estimates as a compromise to you and others.You assumed and or force older estimates as confirmed despite being theoretical as ones for older North Korean missiles like Hwasong-10 and Hwasong-12. Their estimations are based on computer simulation of as accurate as possible characteristics of missile that model of it is used to match result of the test consistently. Chernobog95 (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is it a Vandal or just some SEO?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.124.103.194 This user appears to be a vandal. Some of the incorrect information that was added is innocuous (but incorrect) while others seems quite out of place. Really not sure what to do with this...

Such as claiming that pedagogy is teaching children rather than teaching (in general). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedagogy&diff=prev&oldid=791265365

Replaced President of India with "Akash agarwal" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Greatest_Indian&diff=prev&oldid=788991680

Added a spurious reference. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organizational_culture&diff=prev&oldid=778469170

Said that the whereabouts of the criminal are unknown, yet the article linked said he was not in the courtroom due to illness, so was in his hospital bed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jorge_Glas&diff=prev&oldid=778441082 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twocs (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• That is a Linksys router on a static IP, very likely open to the public, but not an open proxy to the internet. It is also a mismanaged one. I'm tempted to block it on that alone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Softblocked. ie: logged in users can still edit, but no anonymous editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RD1 request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could an administrator please hide revisions of Visakhapatnam police prior to this one; content was clearly copied and pasted and the page creator has now removed it from newer revisions. Home Lander (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ronalditos58815738 has been creating articles, mainly football-related blps, for the last couple of years. There have been many warnings left on their talk page (User talk:Ronalditos58815738) for disruptive editing and lack of communication. Ronalditos58815738 does not seem to have responded to any of these messages. I moved some of the blps, with an external link, of dubious notability and no clear sources - mainly one sentence long - to draftspace and asked Ronalditos58815738 to work on them there and submit them via WP:AFC. Unfortunately, Ronalditos58815738 just copied and pasted them back onto the mainspace, e.g. Óscar Vera. I've brought this here because I've failed to engage the editor in communication. I am concerned that after creating more than 1000 articles (please feel free to double-check exact amount, it wouldn't show using my usual tool), Ronalditos58815738 is still making very poor articles, which are creating lots of work for other editors and refusing to work on them in draftspace. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this ANI was initiated, Ronalditos has created more articles like this, see Isaac Moreno. Boleyn (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Suggestion. The editor has never used either a talkpage or a usertalk page. My inclination would be to topic-ban them from creating any article except in draft space (this would include moving draftspace articles to mainspace). If the articles are good enough, they can be submitted via AFC. Usually, persisting with editing like this would be grounds for a block, but the editor does have many hundreds of constructive edits as well. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree That sounds like a fair solution. It is the article creation that is the main issue (although the refusal to communicate is also disruptive). Ronalditos58815738, can you please comment here? Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a link to WP:Communication is required. If they refuse to communicate, I'm not sure that a topic ban is going to be anything more than a gateway to an indef block, although I wouldn't oppose it simply because it is at least an attempt to get them to be productive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• The topic ban could even be restricted to BLPs. Their other creations, mostly football stadia etc., are less problematic. Black Kite (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

He has about 20 edits, including one new BLP, since he was notified of this discussion. I'm getting the feeling we may be forced to block just to get him talking. :/ Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think a block due to communication and a possible topic ban on creating all articles looks best at the moment. I don't agree that his non-blp articles are any better, for instance [187], a stadium article created yesterday with no refs, one 'external link' and little info, and within a day redirected due to lack of notability. They just aren't taking any care and won't even discuss it. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the chances of a topic ban having any sort of impact on an editor who has never engaged with the community in any way are somewhere in the region of 0%. Given how active he is, a short-ish block of a few days is likely to get his attention (if anything will) and I think we should go straight to this. Either he'll play ball or he'll sock and we'll have to decide if we're prepared to take the good with the bad. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to block him a week, to make sure we get his attention. Any admin is free to unblock once it is clear they get the point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outing attempt and talk page vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Swan11jf has not created a userpage, User:Laocoön just created User:Swan11jf, with "(alleged name)" I blanked the page and then Laocoön added "I am ∈ (name of school)" plus some other content, I reverted this with the edit summery "stop messing with someone else's user page" and was reverted by Laocoön, so I reverted and warned Laocoön, and so far have not been reverted yet, although Laocoön has deleted the warnings from his talk page. In addition to this, Laocoön had replaced a welcome template at User talk:Swan11jf with "Hello, (alleged name) who frequents (name of school)." Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Comment:Have req. oversight.Well, I won't be surprised if these 2 UAC's are linked to one person!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Courcelles:--Lightning fast!And as a side-note what are the requisites for an oversight block?Just outing or something more?Winged Blades ^Godric 17:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT might answer your questions. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does really. An oversight block is simply one based on evidence that no normal admin is capable of reviewing, because the relevant information has been oversighted for whatever reason. WP:OSBL and WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE probably have more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Laocoön is blocked but that there is no block template on their talk page, is this for a reason or did someone simply forget? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to ask the blocking admin. The user will see the block message template every time they attempt to edit, so they are not exactly uninformed. It isn't always necessary to advertise the block reason on the user's talk page - I would suggest especially in the case of oversight blocks that a presumption is made that it's probably intentional. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It was specifically an Oversight block, by Courcelles, all options ticked, which is kind of rare. No admin can overturn anyway. I'm pretty sure the lack of template was not accidental. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, quite intentional. WP:DENY, among other reasons. Basically an oversight-block means "stuff disappeared such that the block may not make sense without also having oversight access". Of course, this time, I didn't notice the ANI... I think the reasons for a block are kind of out of the bag here! Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense, I was wondering if the user would mistake the block for technical difficulties but it sounds like that isn't an issue. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 21

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone fix the malformed template for Constituents of tobacco smoke? (I have tried but templates are not my thing) TY Bosley John Bosley (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it was  Already done. [188] Regards SoWhy 18:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed it, but was then called away, and didn't get around to reporting it here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:JJBers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I modified the section heading to "User:JJBers" from "Request intervention! Comment" per WP:TPO. Generic section headings that could describe 99% of the discussions that cross this page are useless. If I could discern exactly what behavior policy is alleged to be violated, I would include that too, but I don't want to presume anything. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Despite my efforts to be civil and courteous to the same editor as before, it appears rather clear that JJbers has no intention of ceasing deliberate targeting of my edits and reverting them. Although the 3RR rule has yet to be violated I realize it is inevitable. At issue now is the article Westport, Connecticut. In view of the past and in order to protect myself and to show good faith I voluntarily promise not to engage that editor further nor will I continue any further edits of that article until after this matter is resolved. I had hoped to peacefully resume my editing and contribute to Wikipedia, but it will wait. That JJbers is unrelenting in disrespectful behavior towards me makes no sense. I do not want another editing war!!!

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790698999
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790694008
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westport,_Connecticut&oldid=790686776

— Preceding unsigned comment added by StephenTS42 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - given that both parties are currently topic banned from editing another city in the same state, this seems to be a "Connecticut" issue. Maybe an extension of the tban to involve any Connecticut location? Primefac (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What... I have no clue why I'm even here. I got reverted saying I didn't explain my edits, and while one of my edits was breif, he did revert that. He reverted the individual edits that I fully explained what I did. I even said that reverting him. The second and third edits isn't even from me, it's you reverting me. Here is my edit summaries where I removed the content that was reverted:

• From this edit: "infobox corrections" I removed the push-pin map (Which he reverted back, and I'm not even going to bother reverting back), and changed the title from New England Town, to Town, creating a pipe link.
• From this edit: "article cleanup" I removed a bunch of spam panoramas to save time to load the article, plus one was enough, plus I removed a copy and pasted section from another article. The part he reverted was me literally moving a image slightly lower in the text, to match the image's context. That was it.
• From this edit: "no, villages aren't synonymous of the town" I believe this is adequately explained. Villages aren't what the town is known for, unless it's a very large attraction. They have their own section.

I sincerely don't know why this is a issue. What I believe this is, is a over-blown reaction to something minor at best. —JJB^ers 16:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's possible this is just an overreaction, which started with the tban and/or personal animosity. I'm not necessarily advocating changing the current restrictions, just followed the edits. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict issue

Distracts from the primary issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deiced to separate this, because I feel it's a unrelated issue to the original point of the discussion. —JJBers 21:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) Given that StephenTS42 is apparently unable to sign their comments, and has twice posted here today in a way that removed other's comments, I'm starting to think that it may be a CIR issue. TimothyJosephWood 16:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC) To: User:Timothyjosephwood Why did you remove my comment? I did not remove anyone's comments! What are you trying to instigate here? Yes, I forgot to sign one comment, but jeez I made a mistake and a few moments later I did sign it; then someone else removed it... but that is not grounds for CIR. Can't you focus on the subject at hand? JJbers just admitted to reverting 3 of my edits! What does that make me? The bad guy? ——→StephenTS42 (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC) It's the other way around, you reverted three of my edits. Then I reverted you back. —JJBers 17:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Timothy, if this is the edit you are referring to, it could have easily been an edit conflict. It happens. WP:AGF? Also, he only posted once here (minus the filing of the ANI thread). Plus, CIR is not a reason to remove comments. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC) @Callmemirela: He's been here much longer. Maybe 15 or 20 edits here. —JJBers 17:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I meant on this ANI, not in general. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 17:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC) I did AGF, the first half dozen or so times this happened and was addressed, and explained. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC) For those unaware: [189] [190] [191] [192], and that's just in 15 posts at ANI. TimothyJosephWood 18:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Again, easily could have been an edit conflict. The user even says so with this edit back in June. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 18:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, thus CIR. TimothyJosephWood 20:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC) How does an edit conflict lead to CIR? Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC) He has moved on to reverting my edits of West Haven, Connecticut. It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing user above stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all! Doesn't anyone else see what is going on here?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Do not call another editor a thing. --Tarage (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Yes, I agree - please do not refer to other editors as "things" as you did above. It's uncivil, doesn't benefit nor positively add to this discussion in any way, and it makes a personal attack towards another editor. That's not OK. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC) I apologize for the use of the word thing.——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC) It doesn't matter what subject I edit this thing stalks my work, my contributions, then edits and reverts them all! If you're going to call me a thing, then there's becoming a very good reason to block you for 6-12 months, or even indefinitely. Even though I'm technically involved, clearly you're still acting the same since we're TBANed from Norwalk. I took a cool-down after multiple issues back in June, and I think you should take a month long cooldown after this is over. —JJBers 18:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC) Regarding the above comment: The user who has been stalking my work, my contributions to Wikipedia has, and is, conducting a campaign to revert every edit I have made. Within the context of what is defined in the article Wikipedia:Harassment this behavior is clearly Wikihounding and has been going on for quite some time. When confronted with this the above user goes to no end trying to discredit me with any kind of irrelevant accusation with threats of blocking as though he, or she, has such ability. All of which has proceeded unchecked, unrestrained and overlooked in such a manner that may very well be regarded as some kind of tacit approval. I want to know; without any irrelevant, unrelated and inappropriate arguments or accusations why this continues in an environment that ought to disapprove and discourage such behavior. Has that user been granted some kind of privilege, some sort of immunity from the clearly spelled out policies of Wikipedia that renders that user above such policies?——→StephenTS42 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC) @StephenTS42: You realize you're editing towns nearby Norwalk, it's kinda of easy to predict that without checking your contribs. I actually was looking at West Haven when I had found you had edited it (not so greatly), but I looked at it, but never bothered to fix it. This was a weekish ago. Then 2 days ago, I was patrolling some southern CT articles (after West Haven), when I found you had edited Westport. I fixed everything that was wrong with the article, and moved on to other things. See my own contribs for proof: link, I start editing on July 7, and don't edit a single article even related to the area until July 14. Also, really, harassment? If I did WikiStalk you, that would be the large pot calling the small kettle black. —JJBers 03:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC) Regarding the above comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem——→StephenTS42 (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC) What? What solutions are looking for problems? I have no clue by what you meant. —JJBers 06:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Boomerang block for StephenTS42

Clearly since Stephen as now tried to forum shop (a light form of canvassing) at WP:AN3 (link); at this point Stephen is just trying to harass me, and get me blocked for no legitimate reason. So for competency issues and harassment, I'm requesting that Stephen get a boomerang block of 4-6 months for this incident (see his block log for why it's so long). I hope this resolves this issue. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, add spamming to that, Talk:Westport, Talk:Fairfield, Talk:Milford, and Talk:West Haven. —JJB^ers 16:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. —JJB^ers 15:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: with regards to the "spam" issue you listed: while his comments there are unnecessary, I don't think you needed to reply "stop" on 3 different pages plus his talk page telling him to stop. And considering the history between you two, it probably would be best for you to let others handle that kind of issue in the future, not take it upon yourself. only (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Only. I am less inclined to support since the nominator is involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• There's still other issues that aren't related to the spamming, which the WP:CIR is completely unrelated to me. —JJB^ers 2:35 pm, Today (UTC−4)

• It doesn't really matter. The report was meant for your conduct. You are plenty of involved. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 18:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - procedural oppose. I generally oppose sanctions proposed by an involved party, unless there is a damned good and sound reason for such. And not a reason that sounds good. Blackmane (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the recent issue with calling another editor a thing, I assume that calling that same editor a savage (who enjoys tormenting others no less) is no improvement. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  Stephen's behaviour is truly appalling. I don't know if that's done on purpose or not. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 10:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  I would have add this to the mix. This request at WP:RFPP for full protection (!), For as long as possible (!!), when there is a complete absence of persistent vandalism or anything remotely resembling disruption. That somewhat beggars belief. Blackmane (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  There certainly seems to be a long history of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and it doesn't seem to be improving despite past blocks. only (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a month long block: This snarky response to a request to not leave messages on another's talk page, especially because he implied that user was a "savage," shows his continued desire to be antagonistic towards others. There's no consensus for a 4-6 month block that's been proposed here, but I'm beginning to support the idea of at least a month block for him because of his inability to collaborate effectively. The bulk of his edits and communications are to antagonize in some way. only (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV editing

Over the last several months there have been issues with Das osmnezz (talk · contribs) regarding WP:NPOV violations. I think this is mostly an issue of a language barrier. Their grasp on the English language is too poor to realize that there is a problem. They've received numerous warnings, and have been blocked several times for this. After coming off their most recent block a few days ago, the problems with their editing promptly resumed. One of the first things they did was to create an article on Phathana Phommathep with undue weight problems, since Das osmnezz based the article primarily on a puff-piece published by FourFourTwo. They also reverted my attempts to fix these problems. They've continued to use needlessly flowery language, describing football matches with wide margins of victory as an "obliteration" in Phathana Phommathep, and as an "annihilation" and a "demolishing" in Eric Williams (football coach). In Sam Schweingruber, they describe the start of a corruption scandal as "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder". This editor is clearly well intentioned, but unable to write from a neutral point of view. I'm left with the impression that an indefinite WP:CIR block is called for here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Support indefinite block They were blocked for 3 months for this (and some other issues) before. WP:CIR and WP:NOTLISTENING. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've had to deal with this issue for a while and it has been brought here at my suggestion as the most recent incident did not strike me as rising to the level of an indefinite block. See the most recent discussion of this on my talk page. All of which said. Sir Sputnik has some fair points. There are CIR issues here that go back a ways and there needs to be a limit on the extent to which experienced editors should be expected to hold a new editor's hand, especially when the same problems continue to come up. I really hate blocking editors who are clearly not engaged in malicious behavior. But this may be one of those situations where it needs to be done. In any case this is the right venue to resolve this since previous blocks have resulted in endless appeals. Perhaps an experienced editor serving as a mentor might work, but otherwise I think this is not going to have a happy ending. For now I am neutral on an indef block, but only barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

CommentJust saying, when I wrote that "Phnom Penh Crown had been torn asunder" I was quoting the article → [193] itself, not using my own words. Would it have been okay if i used quotation marks? As for the unnecessary flowery language when describing football matches, those were completely over-the-top and I even knew that it qualified as POV editing when I wrote it. Since I did a lot of articles on Word without putting them on Wikipedia, I will revisit them and erase all the unnecessary words and information on there - like I did on Angel Alfredo Vera. Das osmnezz (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Lyoness

Wikipedia's article about the Lyoness pyramid scheme has been repeatedly edited by the subject of the article, under the not very subtle username User:LyonessGroup as well as other single purpose accounts and anonymous IPs. There seems to be little protection of the article and some of the previous whitewashing edits have gone unreverted for over a week. Isn't there a template somewhere that warns editors that the article tends to be edited by its own subject? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I've blocked the LyonessGroup account as an obvious username violation. I haven't got time now to check the edits, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've added some protection to the article that should reduce future problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal Attack by SecretSquirrel78 warned and disregarded.

There's a editor SecretSquirrel78 who, in a space of all of 4 edits, used 1 to accuse me of bias, the 2nd to undo a questionable edit which would almost be immediately undone by another experienced editor, and the 3rd and 4th edit to conduct a personal attack on me and another editor, Wrigleygum, accusing us of biased editing. Which is amusing because I barely even edited in the page on the subject he was talking about, and have obviously never interacted with him prior to his first edit. And somehow managing to also accuse me of accusing him of being another editor [User:Cmr08|Cmr08] when all I asked was if he had another account, due to the comments attached to his first edit of his first edit. Can someone weigh in on this? Thanks! Zhanzhao (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Good morning everyone! I'm just simply warning others that this editor has done edits that are questionable and were plain biased. Thankfully, their antics were stopped after other non partisan editors came to stop them. Look at the edits they've done to Lee Kuan Yew article after his death or look at the talk page.

I hope Wikipedia administration take note that we've editors in Singapore that always trying to surpass and remove content that are not in line with the incumbent. Look at the page Hamilah Yacob, information about her Indian decent was well substantiated but was removed as these editors claim the sources were poor. You can see local forums mocking Wikipedia being infested by pro incumbent editors. I hope the administrators can actively monitor these censors. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned in the other Talkpage, unfortunately certain articles are prone to activism from any side, and most of my edits have in fact been to revert vandalism on these pages. Even in the most recent edits for the Lee Hsien Loong article have mainly been to either correct formatting or to remove unsourced info per BLP. Since your edit history shows you are only active on the Lee Hsien Loong page, plus I cannot speak for Wrigleygum, but you are welcome to point out any edit I have made on the Lee Hsien Loong main page or talk page, which you feel shows bias and has been made against wikipedia policy. You are of course welcome to point out any other edits from other articles, but then that would raise the question again: You seem to have a lot of experience supposedly tracking my alleged bias that goes well beyond your limited edit history. Do you have another account you are not disclosing? Zhanzhao (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Surely you can do better than some random allegations. You will be more productive justifying content rather than personal attacks because wikipedia frowns on the latter. As for Lee Kuan Yew - the last I checked, most of my contributions are still there and we had proper engagement. Wrigleygum (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wrigleygum:----Well, the question was valid enough and wasn't directed at you! Chill!:)Winged Blades ^Godric 17:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

yes your contributions to [Lee Kuan Yew]]'s page are still there but they had to be modified as it sounds something like from North Korea. Let's share with everyone the wonderful stuff you added in a wikipedia article:

"Lee is often described as an conviction leader, incorrupt and of high intelligence. He eschewed populist policies in favor of long-term social and economic measures ...... There is no better strategic thinker in the world today. Two generations of American leaders have benefited from his counsel" Maybe can anyone else check the Lee Hsien Long why both of them are insistent on the suppression of the word "ABUSE".? when everyone is reporting on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

SecretSquirrel, I see that you are continuing to distract from the topic.

1. I made this report specifically about your behavior on the Lee Hsien Loong topic, and
2. about your personal attacks which is against policies. If you wish to make a formal complaint about alleged bias, you are welcome to create your own topic rather than hijacking this.

That you are so interested in other pages, even though your edit history only shows participation on the Lee Hsien Loong page, raises red flags, especially coupled with the comments from the very first edit you made with this account. And now, I see you nonchalantly replacing words like "use" from the original reference with "abuse" even though its quotes from living persons, and used in different context, even when I have explained it very clearly to you they should not be mixed up. Yet you try to explain it as, and I am quoting you exactly "They don't have to say it word for word in the Wikipedia article as that it's plain plagiarism." is an explanation made in either very bad faith, or poor understanding of editing policies here. Zhanzhao (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Mélencron

Hello. I am writing with regard to one specific user's behavior, who - I believe - is abusing his own privileges in bad faith. He goes by as Mélencron and has vandalized the Jarosław Kaczyński page at least once. I left a message both on his discussion page [194] as well as the discussion page of the article about Mr. Kaczyński [195] to not vandalize it, also stating clearly that while I do not sympathize with his actions, Wikipedia should not be a political playground. However, Melencron simply reverted the edits without even trying to communicate with me and tried to turn the tables by making me look guilty of breaking a guidline, which is only partially true - I made a political statement on the discussion page, but that was not the point of my entry - I stated my opinion regarding Mr. Kaczyński to show that while I dislike him, I still want Wikipedia's guidelines to be followed. I find it very ironic that an user removes my entry under a premise that I do not follow Wikipedia guidelines despite the current situation in Poland, after they make an entry which definitely does not follow Wikipedia's standards, calls the subject of the article names, is clearly unencyclopedic and jeopardizes the article in a way that can result in it getting blocked, which may discourage people from making correct entries, which could - by merely stating facts - undermine Mr. Kaczyński's regime. It's basically digging your own grave, if you ask me. 83.28.194.50 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It appears these assertions of vandalism have no basis. Mélencron's recent edits to the article have actually reverted disruptive edits: [196], [197]. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and semi-protected the article due to frequent disruptive edits today. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's the revert the OP/IP did [198] And Mélencron reverted that twice (which is obviously the correct thing to do). WP:BOOMERANG for the IP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that diff Lugnuts. Obvious troll. I've blocked the IP for two weeks for disruptive editing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Sagecandor has recently been involved with disputes on a number of pages involving ownership issues, and edit warring/battleground mentality. Other recent behavior at Talk:Whataboutism seems to also follow this trend that he was warned about by JFG. As a result of the recent AfD on Elijah Daniel they added a bunch of citations to the article, which several editors thought gave it a promotional tone. Anytime an editor has attempted to edit the article to trim it down, Sagecandor has reverted. On 19 July he violated the 3RR on the article (see diffs in my warning). I did not go to ANEW because he hadn't been warned and he agreed to self-revert. Today he reverted twice to restore disputed content [199], [200], and when requested to restore to the trimmed down version to discuss if anything should be restored, he has not done so, even after being given the specifics of why I agreed with each removal and requested that he take to talk to seek consensus per WP:ONUS.

This is in addition to his battleground behavior and Wikihounding with editors who disagreed with him at the AfD (see my talk archives, what appears to be hounding of Anmccaff by going around to articles he has written and adding citation needed tags [201], [202], [203]). Following me to AfDs that I have started immediately after this current dispute (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quintessential Capital Management, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtourism). By looking at this AfD stats after the Elijah Daniels AfD, this also seems to be the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony Ericsson T700, an area he has not edited before this, but where GammaRadiator made the nomination had also !voted to delete Elijah Daniels. This comment at WT:CSD also follows this pattern of following my edits, because I was currently in the extended user talk conversation with them while I was commented there. These all show an editor who is not working collaboratively with others and views disagreements on content policies as personal attacks to be retaliated against. Because of all these issues, I thought that it should be brought to the community's attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm happy and willing to discuss content issues on article talk pages. I've recently brought disputes myself to RFPP [204], RSN [205], and RFC [206]. I've gladly deferred to community consensus when consensus was against me from past RFCs [207]. I've self-reverted at DIFF. The issue at Talk:Whataboutism is being discussed via the Request for Comment process [208]. Prior to that, comments from Binksternet [209] and SPECIFICO [210] supported my research of finding the source, Oxford English Dictionary as a source for the article Whataboutism. I strongly believe in the Wikipedia community processes of WP:RFC and WP:RFPP and WP:RSN, I've submitted myself to those processes in the past, and will do so in the future — even and especially when consensus is against my prior positions. Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The three diffs supposedly showing Sagecandor hounding Anmccaff instead show Anmccaff retaliating against Sagecandor with warning templates. Zeroing in on one of the cases, I looked at Anmccaff's stub article about Battery Harris and to me it looks like its text should be made part of the article on coastal artillery, with a new section written about what was being done in the 1920s to address the threat posed by enemy aircraft. At that article, Sagecandor performed appropriate cleanup, added three fact tags (when one would have been sufficient), and removed an unreliable source. If Sagecandor is hounding Anmccaff there should be some better diffs put forward to prove the case. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, I don't think "retaliating" is an appropriate description for warning someone that you think their edit is disruptive or vandalistic, although I'd agree that the diffs above should have been a couple back, or perhaps a range. When someone shows up, suddenly, on a bunch of pages they probably have never looked at before, all connected by another person....well, that may be circumstantial evidence, but so is a trout in the milk can.

I'd also differ, strongly, that he removed an unreliable source; he did so based solely on the appearance of the site's name, and a misinterpretation of WP:CIRC ...but that is something for elsewhere, at least for now. There's a discussion on RSN. I'd agree the Battery Harris piece could be incorporated into the main CA article, but, again, that's not for here. An admin Sagecandor canvassed (IMO) about one of the reverts I'd made has promised to look into it after returning from vacation at month's end; I'd be perfectly happy to leave it until then. Anmccaff (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet:With regards to that particular issue, I myself brought the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, where I received valuable feedback in detailed anlayses from Slatersteven, Location, Hijiri88, GoneIn60, and Objective3000. [211]. And yet, even if consensus had gone against me, and especially so, I would defer to community consensus from that article content issue. Sagecandor (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I've started a Request for Comment myself at Talk:Elijah Daniel at DIFF. I'll gladly defer to community consensus from that outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Biksternets comment: The concern is with following editors who disagreed with him in the Elijah Daniels AfD around to articles or pages that they have worked on or commented on. Anmccaff !voted on 18 July. The removal of content on articles that Anmccaff was involved in happened in quick succession 5 minutes after this comment from Anmccaff regarding Elijah Daniel (the comment wasn't very nice, but the timing shows it was likely the trigger for the issues on the articles.) The content issues Sage might have been right on, but the behavior when taken together with how he has handled any criticism of Daniel suggests that it was retaliatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Binksternet and TonyBallioni:I regret if my actions were seen as retaliatory, that was not my intent. I brought the issue to wider community attention to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, and I'll respectfully defer to community action there [212]. As a sign of good faith and to avoid the appearance of any impropriety, I've removed some of my comments at two AFDs at DIFF and DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern was less over the opinions or content actions but rather that it looks like you followed me to three conversations while we were in the middle of a dispute about an article (WT:CSD, and the two AfDs), went to three articles edited by Anmccaff five minutes after they had made a negative comment about the Daniel article and then removed or tagged content on those three articles in a one minute time frame, and continued to dispute with them on those articles after that, and that of the two AfDs that weren't mine you commented on after the Daniel AfD, one was by GR, who was the first delete !vote on that article. I do appreciate that you make new articles, but going around and following people who disagree with you and disagreeing with them is not a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and I plan to step back and focus on creating new articles. Sagecandor (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor almost exclusively edits pages related to book on Donald Trump and their authors, and I think it's clear that he has a bias in this area. I filed a complaint at ANI against him approximately 1 month ago [213] regarding his behavior on Malcolm Nance and his edits continue to be both single-purpose and with a clear intent to manufacture notability. I have recently warned Sagecandor several times regarding his battleground behavior and his appearance of bias. [214] [215] He has been extremely involved on the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elijah Daniel (2nd nomination), having notified about 25 WikiProjects regarding the AfD (e.g. [216] [217] [218] [219] [220]) and literally begging to keep the article [221]. I note that most of his time spent on the article was ‘’after’’ it was nominated at AfD, and was adding trivial details to the article. I would like to informally propose a TBAN for Sagecandor regarding Donald Trump. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reply: Yes, I have an interest in the topic of Donald Trump. I've created both new articles on books written by Trump himself, and new articles on books critical of Trump. Examples include Why We Want You to Be Rich, by Trump, and The Case for Impeachment, critical of Trump. I'm dedicated to submitting my work to review from the Wikipedia community by multiple stages of review including Request for Comment. The prior ANI was closed at [222]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Coupla comments. Seems to be mighty slim evidence for such a wide TBAN. In the Battery_Harris article, the discussion at RSN appears to be heavily favoring Sagecandor’s position. As for spending time adding to an article after it is nominated for AfD; I don’t find it unsurprising that an editor would save an article via improvement. Looks like grabbing at everything to build a case against someone. Objective3000 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern is his excessive escalation of every editing dispute he has. He has filed two RfCs (on Whataboutism and Elijah Daniel) in the past day, and notified 10 WikiProjects of each, many of which only have minor connections to the subject at hand. Overall, when an editor disagrees with him, he repeatedly calls in more and more people, rather than engaging in civil discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not "escalation" to seek broader editor participation building consensus. "Escalation" is taking a content dispute to ANI under the pretext that there's a behavioral problem. Do you mean to suggest there's a policy or behavioral guideline against using the noticeboards and RfC's to resolve content disputes? That's what it sounds like, am I mistaken? SPECIFICO talk 20:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks to me as if there was heavy discussion on both sides in the mentioned articles. RfCs are designed to bring in more people to help resolve such disputes. Objective3000 (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just for the record if anyone's confused about where they went, I've removed the claims mentioned above about the Oxford English Dictionary from the Whataboutism article as they're demonstrably false (the actual OED has no entry for "Whataboutism" and never has done). The website being cited has nothing to do with the OED other than also being run by the Oxford University Press (and hence having "Oxford" in the name, which I assume is what caused the confusion.) ‑ Iridescent 19:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I thank Iridescent for the clarification and it appears Nightscream had previously redirected Oxford Living Dictionary to Oxford English Dictionary. The page there for whataboutism is from Oxford Living Dictionary, whose About Page about the site says it is part of Oxford Dictionaries. Sagecandor (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Oxford Dictionaries, of which the OED is not part. The OUP's own explanation of the difference between the OED and Oxford Dictionaries is here, should you really care. ‑ Iridescent 20:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @Iridescent:I do really care, and thank you very much for your helpful link !!! Sagecandor (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Now you're telling us that a "warning" from @JFG: is coin of the realm? This complaint is not documented by anything remotely passing the tests of evidence. I suggest you withdraw and get back to work. Sagecandor is highly industrious so it's no surprise some of his edits displease other editors. That has nothing to do with the alleged misbehaviour. There is no misbehaviour no incivility even and nothing resembling Battleground edits. Sagecandor even thanks editors even while engaged in a disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 20:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Hi all, I'm sorry that our wires crossed. Editing in these topics has been stressful and I'm planning to move on to quieter venues as soon as the current AfDs and RFCs close. I thought that the RfCs would be the best way to bring in new voices, but if there are better ways, I'm all ears. In any event, don't want to drag this out. Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sagecandor, thanks for the comment, and I am glad that we are discussing at the talk page: I'm not much of an ANI regular, and I absolutely hate filing reports here. I'm not trying to have you sanctioned, and I am glad that we are having more substantial conversation on the talk page. In regards to your edit above, I read it as saying that you did follow the three of us to different areas of Wikipedia. This was actually the most concerning part of this ANI for me, and I want to make sure that it doesn't happen again because that discourages others from taking place in our project space discussions. I don't want to drag this out, nor do I want an apology, but if this is what you did, I would like for you to acknowledge it (which you may have already) and agree not to follow others around in the future when you have disagreements with them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni:Agreed that it's not a good thing, agreed to avoid any appearance of that in the future. Sagecandor (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Range block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking for an admin who's able to perform range blocks, as we need one on "94.102.184.xx". You can view the ones that I tagged in the past days right here. I'd describe the level of disruption as being pretty nuts, given that he, the sockmaster, "Roman Sakhan", is using IPs from this range every single day in order to disrupt this place. Thanks in advance - LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon - I don't see any contributions by this range since July 20, and that was only one edit. It looks like I start to see numerous edits as recent as July 19th. Is there any current ongoing disruption by this IP range that's occurring right now? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah:, well, if you're really talking about right now in the very sense of the word ("22 July 2017") then yes, you are very much correct in your assessment. However, it all doesn't neglect the point that he's pretty damn disruptive, and could basically be at it again in a few hours. I decided to raise the matter here in order to deal with it accordingly, because I had to deal with so many of his IPs in the past few days and weeks (reverting/tagging), and also because I just happened to find another one his IPs (whose edit dates to July 20). - LouisAragon (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to be all caused by the same user, and I don't see any collateral damage upon doing so. I'll start with a week-long range block and then we can evaluate and go from there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - LouisAragon (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

LouisAragon - You bet. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated personal comments in AFD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would an admin please review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridiron Developmental Football League? Please advise next course of action in discussion between myself and User:Niteshift36. I'm most concerned about continued personal comments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest not making incorrect allegations. You'll probably find that the snippy retorts will stop on their own. Reyk _YO! 06:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Curious... what incorrect allegations did I make, and if I did what reason would that give as an excuse for personal attacks?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• 1) That I did no BEFORE and that 2) I was using financial income as the measure of notability. The latter was repeated after I clearly told you that wasn't being used. And saying that I may need to draw you a picture isn't really a personal attack in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a robust exchane of views; if slightly more robust from one party than the other. Personally I'd suggest ignoring the entire issue and getting on with establishing / not establishing notability for your league. Happy editing! — fortunavelut luna 11:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the red herrings about stubs, finances, and WP:BEFORE for a start. I'd get annoyed too, if I was talking to someone and they piled on irrelevancy after irrelevancy and put words in my mouth that I never said. You can't go out of your way to try and frustrate and bamboozle someone and then complain that they snap at you. Reyk _YO! 11:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you. You saw it too. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I was not attempting to bamboozle anyone, and there were no "red herrings" as you say. I brought up WP:BEFORE because many editors fail to do that, I made no accusation. Overall, I was voicing my position in good faith, albeit one of disagreement. Editors should be free to disagree without having a personal attack for that disagreement. Or am I incorrect and disagreement is a reason for personal attack?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Problem is Paul, you didn't disagree. You first implied that I didn't do any BEFORE. Then you started this whole "finance" thing, when it's obvious I didn't say that. Even when I explicitly said that I wasn't using finance as a measure, you repeated the falsehood. So yeah, I got snarky. At that point, I feel you're just being insulting when you were explicitly told the meaning. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for failing to communicate effectively with you as I intended.--Paul McDonald (talk) 9:04 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Oh. That AFD. An editor requested assistance at DRN, but DRN does not handle deletion discussions, and I advised them to be civil, and of course that didn't go over well. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, I have an idea.... let's see what this horrible "personal attack" actually said: "Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons..." There is is. Snarky? Yeah. An attack? Not so much. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
• Policy at WP:NPA states: "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36 - While I believe that the discussion between you two started from mis-translating one's responses as "bad faith", your responses here ("Well, at least that's how you are acting. So I'll return the favor and educate you, since you apparently struggle with what "significant coverage" is", here ("Oh wait... you're one of those people who need the obvious explained", here ("I'm sorry that you can't understand the context", and especially here ("Let's see if I can put this in language plain enough for you to understand. I do not claim that there is a financial requirement for notability. Is that clear enough? I mean I guess I could break out the crayons....") - are absolutely uncivil and make personal attacks. This is not acceptable behavior per Wikipedia's policies on civility and the policy disallowing the use of personal attacks toward others. I understand that you two have disagreements on various policies, but this is not the way to get clarification and resolution on this matter.

Wikipedia's general notability guidelines state that significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Back when I participated in AFD, I translated this to mean that enough reliable sources exist that allow enough content, information, and details to be used to write an article without the use of original research. While it's certainly normal to debate the meaning and translation of these definitions, it's certainly not okay to use incivility and personal attacks to discuss your viewpoint and uphold your argument. Please do not make any more personal attacks, and continue your discussion with civility in-mind. If personal attacks and incivility continue, action can be taken to stop the disruption from occurring in the discussion taking place. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've also closed the AFD discussion, as the consensus is clearly reached that the article should be kept. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings - a block necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HoldenV8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has contributed a lot to rugby league articles he was previously blocked in April 2016 by Michig (talk · contribs) for persistent addition of adding uncited material. since that time, Holden's citations have improved but has gone back to this pattern of adding uncited material. I gave a warning in May 2017 [223] and a final warning in June citing 3 examples of uncited material. [224]. despite warnings, Holden persists, adding this a few days ago. it's got to the point of blatant disregard of WP rules. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In this situation - yes, typically. But this account hasn't edited in over 8 hours. Therefore, I can't apply a block at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added a warning to his talk page. Like Oshwah said, he hasn't edited since yesterday and so I'm not keen to block now. His talk page is a horror show though. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I actually submitted this ANI 3 days ago but no one responded. he actually continued to edit after I notified him of this ANI. My frustration with this User is that he continually ignores warnings. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Persistent addition of uncited material by User:HoldenV8
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#persistent addition of uncited material despite several warnings

Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Oshwah and Basalisk: - the editor's talk page is a horror, and looking at it I see that not once has this editor ever responded. This isn't really acceptable, and I'd support an indefinite block until they can show that they will follow our policy and guidelines and not ignore warnings, etc. on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller - I don't have a problem with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller - neither do I. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we have a consensus here. The deed has been done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Basalisk - I've also revoked the autopatrolled user right from this editor. Should he successfully appeal his block, his contributions (including article creations) need to be monitored and he'll need to demonstrate relevant policy knowledge before it's given back. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's true that he never responds to my requests in his talk page. I have found hundreds of uncited additions from him. I've politely asked him to fix up many articles he has worked on which he refuses. Instead he ignores warnings and keeps on working on new articles. He continues to work like this because of just one block in years of contributing uncited material. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JuiianPE socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I stumbled upon these three accounts with the same name: JuiianPema, Juiianpe1, and JuiianPe. All these accounts so far have made disruptive edits even after being warned twice. I need anyone's help to deal with these accounts as continue to disregard warning from other users and it is getting out of hand. Nuobgu (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

JuiianPema has been blocked for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unsourced /poorly sourced content. The second account you listed has only made two edits, and the third account doesn't exist. I'll keep an eye on things, but I can't block them all at this time for sock puppetry. So far, I haven't found enough evidence to justify it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is the link to the third one, I made a mistake with the name. The edits on this account is similar to the first account you blocked. Tainted-wingsz is witness as well. Nuobgu (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@above, when I noticed the edits. Was over at the Deadman Wonderland page or simply 'article.' As over by the article's body section by here, but that was a few days ago. Then there was similar edits on different articles. Which felt somewhat curious about it, like the start of an air date to a show, or its shows' season. (If it ended a time ago, as to this.) Or by this edit too, when it was changed back 'to last known part.' Tainted-wingsz (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed:

About the date "March 26, 2018", diff 1 - User:JuiianPe, diff 2 - User:JuiianPema.

About the date "January 7, 2012", diff 1 - User:Julianpe1, diff 2 - User:JuiianPema.

FYI to User:Tainted-wingsz, I think the master account User:Julianpe1 have a temp block would be better.

SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• JuiianPema, JuiianPe, Julianpe1, and Julianpe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed to each other. Katie^talk 03:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Bagged and tagged. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've made a mess of a history merge, please help!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I tried to do a history merge of Draft:Jordon Steele-John into Jordon Steele-John, but it's clear that I do not understand how it works. Please help untangle the page histories. The Draft article should show only three edits; two by ScottDavis and the one I did with the summary "It's a Draft, not a Stub". All the other edits belong to the mainspace page. The actual page content is as it was, it's only the edit histories that are messed up. I'm sorry for this mess, it was my first attempt at a history merge. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Incidentally, WP:RFHM is the place to go if you're not sure about history merges/splits. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do some practicing in Draft-space before I try merging actual articles again. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fan4Life

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Obvious troll since the beginning, ignores WP:PUS and revert edits under the reason "fan edits" Posed in his Talk page, removed it, like he has removed other warnings from other users. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You do the exact same. Your edit summary when you revert my edits is "Fan". There was no reason to revert my edits, Nicki Minaj being the Queen of Rap is widely recognised, if you search it in Google, Nicki Minaj comes up. There are two sources provided for Ariana Grande being the Princess of Pop, just because one says "Pop's New Princess" doesn't mean the other one doesn't matter. Also, referring to me as a troll is a personal attack, which is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia policy. Fan4Life (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Fan4Life: You're referring to the last one.. which was clearly a mistake trying to write your name and stated in the next summary. You know how WP:REFERENCES work. "Widely recognized" and you cite Daily Mirror. All your behavior here's been like that. Stop ignoring WP:PUS. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You have put "Stop being a fan" before. But Nicki Minaj is widely recognised as the Queen of Rap, if you search "queen of rap" in Google, Nicki Minaj is the first result. Also, Ariana Grande is widely recognised as being the Princess of Pop, there are various sources out there. Fan4Life (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Fan4Life - I understand if you're unfamiliar Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and potentially unreliable sources, but that doesn't give you the ability or the excuse to ignore such guidelines when others are pointing them out to you - especially when it's in relation to a BLP. Please stop repeatedly reverting edits, and discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages and come to an agreement before making any more changes to these articles. If the reverting continues on these articles, and if calls to discuss the matters in dispute are ignored on top of this - your account may be blocked for disruptive editing. Please work with cornerstonepicker and resolve your dispute, and take the time to review and understand the relevant policies and guidelines mentioned here.

Cornerstonepicker - I understand the frustration you may be feeling right now, but I want to also remind you to discuss this issue and refrain from letting yourself get sucked into an edit war. I've seen some close calls, but none that are recent - definitely keep this in mind. From here, you need to resume the relevant discussions on the article's talk pages and ping Fan4Life so that he'll have the chance to respond and discuss it. If he doesn't and the reverts he made continues, you can file a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to have the matter looked into.

Do any of you two have any questions for me? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that both editors make good points. Maybe a small thing can resolve this? How about sighting on the Nicki Minaj page a link to a reference with the term "Queen of rap"? Possibly that would make all parties happy? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The info he keeps posting can't be properly sourced (with a reliable source), I believe it should be removed until then, like always. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just returned to the 'pedia after a 6 month vacation, so I am not going to use my admin tools right now. However, @Fan4Life: please stop edit warring to include information without sufficient sourcing. Just because a term has been used once by a tabloid and a smattering of blogs does not make it ready for inclusion in that list. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neutral heading

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is something going on between Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) and The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). We need an experienced user to deal with this, preferably someone who both users respect. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be the eleven times I've asked this admin to provide evidence to substantiate his accusations of me being a liar and also to substantiate his claim so me redacting said lies. You stole my sausage because I have shitloads of diffs where I've asked for evidence but nothing doing. This will now devolve into a Hate TRM thread. Thanks for that. Good night. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

JohnThorne - years of copyvio, plagiarism, OR, etc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JohnThorne (talk · contribs) is a hard-working editor who I'm sure is trying to improve our coverage of biblical subjects, in particular articles covering chapters of the Bible, creating about 375 articles.[225] He is a sysop on the Indonesian wikipedia.[226]

I first encountered him in October 2011 when I found him adding copyright from an unreliable source.[227] My latest was this week at Fiery flying serpent[228] where I reverted him with an edit summary saying "Copied from obsolete sources, some copy/paste without attribution." Unfortunately almost six years later he continues to have problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism and at times NPOV. He has had a number of warnings/discussions about the issues and he always answers politely but then seems to carry on without taking account of them. An example of a typical discussion is here.

Some examples of warnings: [229][230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] from myself, User:Lucas559, User:DGG, User:Diannaa, User:Crow and User:Alephb Also see Various issues] from User:Jeffro77 endorsed by User:Fayenatic london.

A pov edit that User:Editor2020 reverted in May[239] and that he restored the next day.[240] I reverted it 2 days ago. It said "Tower of Babel Stele (604–562 BCE, time of Nebuchadnezzar II) depicting the "Tower of Babel" (Genesis 11) But the linked article just says that the stele is a representation of the ziggurat Etemenanki which might be the inspiration, even the actual, Tower of Babel, but not that it is definitely the Tower. Doug Weller talk 05:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said to him some years ago: "That it's PD doesn't mean it's reliable. What the article should have in short quotes, and they are permitted by fair use. You know the major commentaries better than I do. I'd guess you have a number of them to hand, for you cite some in other articles. " For the ones that are in fact PD, and just need attribution, the attribution should be added, but someone who knows the literature needs to add appropriate modern sources. Biblical studies is drastically different than it was one or two centuries ago, and any earlier source is of primarily historical interest, or--for the major theologians--of interest for its own sake. Even with the last century years, the interpretations have changed radically more than once, and will presumably keep changing- partly due to differing theological assumptions, historical methods, additional texts, and archeological data. (More generally, everything in WP based upon the old EB and Catholic Encyclopedia and the even earlier PD sources, needs to rewritten. _ DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

JohnThorne has been on a long project of creating articles about individual chapters of the Bible. He does these by copy-pasting material, sometimes with attribution, and sometimes without. He repeatedly relies on unreliable sources of various kinds. A look at his user contributions shows that this ongoing project of his takes up almost all of his editing contributions to English Wikipedia. Six years in, he is the kind of user who should, be, as his Userpage says, be "old enough to know better."

People have tried to discuss this kind of thing with him on various occasions, and while he occasionally will clean up a specific issue on a specific article, he has unceasingly kept up all the problematic practices right up to the present.

First, here's diffs of different people trying to talk to him about his problematic editing practices:

[241]

[242] [243][244][245][246][247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252].

The other editors who have tried to speak to him on his talk page about various aspects of his editorial process include myself, User:Fayenatic london, User:Jeffro77, User:Doug Weller, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Crow, User:Diannaa, User:Sir Joseph, User:Antinoos69, User:DGG, and User:Lucas559. Of course, their interactions with him very from very mild to somewhat more serious, so their own assessment of the situation might vary from mine. But I think looking at his Talk Page and his archives will show a pretty consistent pattern of how he concerns other editors.

I am certain that this will not include all the people who have interacted at him on various talk pages, because he is very prolific and has used his copy-paste methods to produce an enormous number of articles. Those discussions I have only encountered on an occasional basis, such as a discussion about plagiarism — not really a discussion because it doesn't look like JohnThorne responded, at least not on the talk page with User:FeatherPluma at Talk:James 3.

For a sampling of what the issues look like, see for example the page Talk:Ezekiel 1, where myself and User:PiCo discuss the use of sources. It's also another good example of the way attempts at constructive criticism go in one ear and out the other with JohnThorne. A similar conversation could each just as easily occur at almost every article he has produced, but for the most part people just haven't been following his work because he creates new articles on single chapters which aren't linked to much. I've only become aware of how extensive the problem is fairly recently, although I'd been aware of the issue in general for some time. See also his discussion with User:Antinoos69 on Talk:Romans 1 and Talk:1 Timothy 1.

The following list is very long (but not exhaustive, believe it or not!), and I would not expect anyone to read it all, but clicking a couple articles at random in it, and looking at their page history and contents, will give you an idea of what we're dealing with. These are biblical articles he started, and they mount up more quickly than other editors can reasonably be expected to keep up with. In chronological order, starting with more recent ones: Jeremiah 34, Jeremiah 31, Jeremiah 30, Jeremiah 29, Jeremiah 28, Jeremiah 27, Jeremiah 26, Jeremiah 25, Jeremiah 24, Jeremiah 21, Jeremiah 20, Jeremiah 19, Jeremiah 18, Jeremiah 17, Jeremiah 16, Jeremiah 15, Jeremiah 14, Jeremiah 13, Jeremiah 12, Jeremiah 11, Jeremiah 10, Jeremiah 9, Jeremiah 8, Ezekiel 47, Ezekiel 46, Ezekiel 45, Ezekiel 44, Ezekiel 43, Ezekiel 42, Ezekiel 41, Ezekiel 40, Ezekiel 39, Ezekiel 38, Ezekiel 36, Ezekiel 35, Ezekiel 34, Ezekiel 33, Ezekiel 32, Ezekiel 31, Ezekiel 30, Ezekiel 29, Ezekiel 28, Ezekiel 27, Ezekiel 25, Ezekiel 24, Ezekiel 23, [[Ezekiel 22], Ezekiel 21, Ezekiel 20, Ezekiel 19, Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 17, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 15, Ezekiel 13, Ezekiel 12, Ezekiel 11, Ezekiel 10, Ezekiel 8, Ezekiel 6, Ezekiel 5, Ezekiel 2, Ezekiel 4, Ezekiel 3, Ezekiel 7, Jeremiah 7, Jeremiah 6, Jeremiah 5, Jeremiah 4, Jeremiah 3, Jeremiah 2, Ruth 4, Ruth 3, Ruth 1, Lamentations 5, Lamentations 4, Lamentations 3, Lamentations 2, Lamentations 1, Hosea 14, Hosea 13, Hosea 12, Hosea 11, Hosea 10, Hosea 9, Hosea 8, Hosea 7, Hosea 6, Hosea 5, Hosea 4, Hosea 3, Hosea 2, Amos 9, Amos 8, Amos 7, Amos 6, Amos 4, Amos 3, Amos 2, Zechariah 13, Zechariah 11, Zechariah 10, Zechariah 9, Zechariah 8, Zechariah 7, Zechariah 6, Zechariah 5, Zechariah 1, Zechariah 2, Zechariah 3, Zechariah 4, Malachi 3, Malachi 1, Micah 6, Micah 5, Micah 4, Micah 3, Micah 2, Jonah 4, Jonah 3, Jonah 2, Isaiah 66, Isaiah 65, Isaiah 64, Isaiah 63, Isaiah 62, Isaiah 61, Isaiah 59, Isaiah 58, Isaiah 57, Isaiah 56, Isaiah 55, Isaiah 54, Isaiah 48, Isaiah 45, Isaiah 44, Isaiah 43, Isaiah 38, Isaiah 37, Isaiah 36, Isaiah 35, Isaiah 34, Isaiah 33, Isaiah 32, Isaiah 31, Isaiah 30, Isaiah 29, Isaiah 28, Isaiah 27, Isaiah 26, Isaiah 25, Isaiah 24, Isaiah 23, Isaiah 22, Isaiah 21, Isaiah 20, Isaiah 19, Isaiah 18, Isaiah 17, Isaiah 16, Isaiah 15, Isaiah 14, Isaiah 13, Isaiah 12, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 10, Isaiah 60, Joel 3, Joel 2, Joel 1, Zephaniah 3, Zephaniah 2, Isaiah 9, Isaiah 8, Haggai 2, Haggai 1, Isaiah 3, Isaiah 4, Isaiah 5, Isaiah 6, Isaiah 7, Isaiah 41, Isaiah 40, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 51, Isaiah 42, Isaiah 49, Isaiah 50, Nahum 2, Habakkuk 3, Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 1.

Just looking over the contents and page history of a few of these many entries at random should be enough to demonstrate that there is an ongoing pattern here. That pattern does not constitute "creating articles" or building encyclopedic content in the Wikipedia sense of the term. Instead, we have the production of "articles" that consist of material from a variety of sources, thrown together in a manner that is often haphazard, and without a sense of coherence that summarizes the whole chapters in terms of reliable scholarship.

It's a mess.

To go into more specific examples, one of his ongoing practices is to produce "Structure" sections for his "articles", which simply plagiarize section headings from the New King James Version of the Bible. Compare this [253] to this [254]. The same thing (I can draw up the diffs if that helps) can be found for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, etc. It's pervasive.

Another example is his repeated plagiarism of Matthew Poole's commentary. Compare this [255] to this [256]. I could easily get you a bunch more of those too, if you need them.

There are also extensive citations to unreliable sources, including John Gill's commentary, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, the Nelson Study Bible, Matthew Poole's commentary, the J. D. Davis Bible Dictionary, Holman's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Albert Barnes' commentary, Ellicott's Commentary, Halley's Bible Handbook, and a website called The Way to Yahuweh, etc., etc., etc. If you want explanations as to why these are unreliable, or where he has used them, I'd be happy to oblige.

If you want to know about unreliable sources, my recommendation would be this: pick three articles at random out of the giant list above (say, maybe Hosea 5, Jeremiah 12, and Zechariah 10, —or literally any other three you like, so that I don't get to hand-pick them — and I'll walk you through the various unreliable citations in each of the three to a level of detail that I think should be enough to substantiate the overall problem. I've become very familiar with his favorite unreliable sources lately — there's about a dozen or so that he goes back to over and over mostly because they exist in convenient form on a handful of religious websites. The problem is sustained enough that I'm highly confident you won't be able to pick three articles at random that aren't filled with unreliable sources.

To generalize, the sources tend to prioritize a particular sort of Protestant conservatism, even at the cost of contradicting well-founded conclusions of mainstream biblical scholarship. Of course, I fully support the right of anyone to believe whatever version of things they want. But Wikipedia sourcing is another matter.

To summarize, the user is prolific, shows no signs of adapting to Wikipedia norms about sourcing, and shows no signs of effectively listening to the repeated concerns of other editors about the subject. Given his known tendency to plagiarize from sources that can easily be found online, I am concerned about the amount of plagiarism which could potentially be occurring with books he cites which cannot be found online. We cannot all spend our lives at the library working to double-check his edits, after all.Alephb (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Joining Wikipedia is an honor based on the encouragement to contribute to make is significant in the world. As I am aware of my own lackings, I rely on good faith of all users to contribute to the articles I started. I do take the criticisms seriously, but I also uphold neutral point of view, not to lean heavily on one side of opinions (e.g. different sides of Biblical criticisms) and maintain the middle ground as much as I can. Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. Nonetheless, admittedly I could not keep up when certain editors keep adding the "limits" of what must or must not use as references. In most cases, I would wait until certain editors completed the edits before I improved them for neutrality, instead of doing multiple revertable edits that hampers the eagerness to move forward with adding more contents to make Wikipedia more complete. Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted. I am willing to keep learning to contribute, by adjusting my writings according to good instructions, and correcting any mistakes, without being condescending to the narrow views of some editors nor feeling already good enough, so I keep studying resources that could be acceptable to most users, and improving the articles to be informative, useful and easy to read. However, I also plea to be assisted in dealing with some pressures to sway the neutrality of the articles. Let's make Wikipedia fun, educational and social place to contribute as it should be. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you do not realize that the sources you use are almost every one of them based on one general line of interpretation--the 18th and 18th century orthodox Protestant viewpoint,which essentially regarded the Bible as a trustworthy document that had to be explained, but not analyzed--that difficulties and contradictions should be explained away by interpretation, rather than seen as indications of the complexity of the documents. This viewpoint needs to be included among others, but it is not in line with the current informed consensus to make it the basis of an article. Using a variety of such sources is not including all views or NPOV (though there are differences between them thought significant at the time); it is if one were to write an article on a current political proposal using many sources, but all supporting it (however much they disagreed in detail.) I know some of the criticism you have received objects to using such sources at all, but I think including the traditional Protest and Catholic interpretations is essential, because of the cultural and historical influence. But it needs to be indicated (the simplest indication is to give the date in the text, not doonly in the footnotes). And equivalent modern commentaries must be included, representing not just the current view but the most significant views through time. I am not even altogther sure that you understand the diferences over the centuries, or today.

and another point , there do not seem to have ben any Jewish sources used for the OT books. The prophetic books in particular are understood very differently by Jews and Christians, and there seems to be a recent emphasis on those books. J (And Islam also regards both the OT an NT as inspired scripture, and has its range of interpretations as well.)

Additionally, it is not sufficient to just use a range of miscellaneous sources without grouping them or indicating in some manner their nature., As an analogy, "Most Republican commentators say ... " DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a very serious problem, which needs to be addressed. It might be best if JohnThorne were prohibited from editing in mainspace, until such time as he can convince the community that he understands, and is willing to adhere to, Wikipedia policies. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at his response I agree. His response doesn't seem, well, responsive. It's more or less what he's been saying for a long time and that's not good enough. I'm not convinced he's capable of the sort of change in his editing required, or that he understands the issues. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Although this editor responds politely, I have not seen him taking notice in practice of the advice given and requests made to him. Moreover, his poor level of written English (as shown above) does not qualify him to contribute usefully in English Wikipedia, except perhaps on topics where local knowledge might be helpful. He would not be able to rewrite his sources to a good standard, and does not make a practice of giving attribution where he should.

(I do not accept the suggestion that his sources are necessarily unreliable. They are not up to date, but nor is Easton's dictionary on which many of Wikipedia's Biblical articles are based. However, I agree that a broader and more representative variety of sources should be quoted.)

I suggest a topic ban for a period of time on Bible-related articles. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Not every source he uses is unreliable, almost all the sources I listed as unreliable I listed not because they are old, but because they push various fringe positions. They would be in a different category from, say, the Encyclopaedia Biblica, which is old and sometimes outdated but does not devote itself to the fringe in the same way. And some of the bad sources he uses are from the 1960's-1990's. Anyhow, we're in agreement that there's a problem here, regardless of exactly how we'd frame some of the sourcing issues. I would also support a topic ban. I just wanted to make it clear, at least speaking for myself, I wasn't judges the sources strictly on age. As for any source I've mentioned, I'd stand willing and ready to show anyone the specific places where it teaches [WP:FRINGE]] positions. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Requiring a user to cover a theology topic from Muslim, Jewish, Catholic and various Protestant viewpoints is far beyond resonable. Only very accomplished scholars would be able to do that single handedly. In an ideal world articles on every chapter of the Old Testament would reflect all major view points but Wikipedia is a work in progress and someone needs to start the page with something. I disagree that 18th/19th century Protestent commentary is all junk to be ignored. Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly. In addition to the 'I don't like his theology' tone, some of the specific charges here ring false. Section headings are not copyright protected generally for example. Legacypac (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Whether 'Many people still believe the Bible to be a reliable document that is internally consistent if understood properly' or not is true, it seems unlikely that those with such beliefs are writing from a NPOV. Nor would I think most Christians be writing about these Hebrew fables from a NPOV. But you have to start somewhere (assuming that we actually need articles for each section of each chapter). Presuming the answer isn't to simply merge a lot of this, perhaps simply tagging the article that it isn't NPOV, or some kind of tag noting that the POV is from a particular Christian sect, and other POVs must be added is the answer. Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the conventional 19th century view can and should be used--either it or the tradition Catholic view could be used effectively as a starting point (or the traditional Jewish view for the OT), with other views then presented in an organized manner. Obviously not all of any article like this should be done by one person. In organizing the view, I'm not sure that the verse-by verse technique is the best, because it make presentation much more clumsy that a discussion that covers the while chapter--I think this would help clarify the presentation (of course thereare some individual verses that do need special attention). DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, Legacypac, taking just the section headings issue, the section-heading problem illustrates an issue with this editor's approach even if we grant for the sake of argument that there is no copyright problem. For all I know you may be right, and perhaps there's a special exception in copyright law for section headers.

For the article Habakkuk 1, you can see that the article has a "structure" section, which splits the topic up into parts. There is no citation to any scholarly work whatsoever on the structure of Habakkuk and where this chapter fits into it — although any reasonably comprehensive commentary would have that. Instead, the user opens up his New King James Bible, pulls out the section headings that are there as a convenience for readers, and copies them without attribution into the article. He also types something about "cross-references" into the the Structure section that doesn't quite make sense.

Then he copy-pastes that section from the Habakkuk 1 article into other articles, changing the section headings to copy the appropriate ones from his NKJV each time, each time doing so without any indication to the reader that he's doing so. He does this for Habakkuk 2, Habakkuk 3, Nahum 2, Haggai 1, Haggai 2, Jonah 1, Jonah 2, Micah 1, Micah 2, etc. etc. etc.

And that's just the structure sections. Similar techniques, with varying degrees of copy-pasting, attribution, misattribution, or plagiarism are used to build the entire article, for hundreds of articles in a row, no matter what people keep telling him.

Speaking just for myself, Legacypac, I feel some sympathy for your claim that 18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk. Biblical studies owes a lot to some very astute 18th and 19th century Protestant scholars who helped found it as an academic discipline. My objection to the improper large-scale copy-pasting from some particular 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st-century sources does not reflect an opposition to all early Protestant work.Alephb (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

"18th/19th century Protestant commentary isn't all junk" -well, I guess not, but there is no reason on WP to use 100 or 200 year old sources, one of the best things about WP is that it is easily updated to summarise recent scholarship. Accepting the advice to randomly click on one of the articles listed above, I chose Zechariah 13 and find this exegesis on vs 7, copied (with attribution in a footnote) from a book written in 1884- "The envy and hatred of Satan, the blind fury of the chief priests, the contempt of Herod, the guilty cowardice of Pilate, freely accomplished that Death, which God had before decreed for the salvation of the world. The meaning then is, (Ribera), "the sword shall be aroused against My Shepherd, that is, I will allow Him to be smitten by the Jews." You would not find Christian scholars today blaming "the Jews" for Jesus' death, or taking it as a given that a verse in a Jewish scripture is referring to an event in Jesus' life. Both blaming "the Jews" for Jesus'death,and reading Jewish holy texts solely as "prophecies" of Christianity could be taken today as extremely anti-Semitic. I think it is wrong for these antiquated, and possibly damaging, attitudes to be perpetuated here on WP. On the other hand, looking at the page view statistics, that article has an average of one view a day, so it could be felt that it is not very important. My feeling is that if these articles are going to exist at all they should not be based on such out of date sources, Biblical scholarship, even by committed Christian scholars, has utterly altered over the last hundred or two hundred years.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to take the Zechariah 13 case, let's run through the elements of this post, which with little variations here and there resembles the bulk of this editor's output. First, we have an obvious statement, like, "Zechariah 13 is the 13th chapter of Zechariah," which is then cited to two thoroughly fringe sources, dated 1962 and 2012. Next is another generic sentence, cited to the Intrepreter's [sic] Bible and a fringe source dated to 1960. The lead in no way summarizes the contents of Zechariah 13, nor does any part of the article. The "Text" section simply tells us that the chapter is in Hebrew and tells us how many verses are in the chapter -- other than the verse number the whole section is copy-pasted. The "Translations" section is likewise a copy-paste job. The "Structure" section is created by unattributed copy-paste from the NKJV Bible. The rest of the article, the only part which discusses the actual contents of the chapter at all, is all about a single verse, verse 7. This final section opens with a quotation from the KJV Bible, but the name of the translation is nowhere given to the reader, who must simply guess where the quote is taken from. After the quote, it consists of four bullet points, each one discussing a phrase in the verse. The first is copied from the commentary by Albert Barnes, who argued against the academic mainstream's ideas about the authorship of Genesis and believed that Moses had written it. Without quote marks around Barnes' quotation, the article would appear to the casual reader to be presenting the "Zechariah is about Jesus" viewpoint as a simple fact, rather than as one theological viewpoint. The second bullet point copies and pastes from a similar source (the Pulpit Commentary) from a similar period, with a similar viewpoint likewise present as if it were simple fact. The third bullet point copy-pastes from John Gill (circa 1750), who is problematic for the same reasons, and whose views are simply presented as fact without quote marks. The fourth-bullet point does the same thing with yet another nineteenth-century source. So there's not even really an article about Zechariah 13 here -- just a series of quotes, presented as fact, telling us that one particular verse in Zechariah 13 is definitely all about Jesus. Rinse and repeat, 375 times. Alephb (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I think that is very very bad. Thanks to Doug Weller, DGG and you for bringing this to wider attention. WP is not here to promote outdated Christian theology from hundreds of years ago that even Christian scholars do not believe anymore. Presenting Jewish scriptures as being "all about Jesus" is considered extremely anti-Semitic and offensive today, even by committed Christians. Obviously I have not looked at all those articles, but you seem to have done, and my feeling is that they should all be deleted and the editor who created them topic banned.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I haven't seem them all, but I've looked pretty closely at about one hundred of them, and I haven't seem one yet that doesn't have the same problems. As for the other three hundred or so, given that I picked a lot of the articles pretty much at random from the 375-ish that the editor has written, I'm confident there is a low chance of there being a large number of decently-written articles hiding in there somewhere. Alephb (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I see the original poster and soem writings above are expressing a non-neutral point of view. Just because an editor write with a point of view is not a reason to ban or block. What you will see here is a stronger point of view from conservative Protestant from previous centuries because they are the ones who have published and have material available under public domain on the web. Modern critical scholarship should be reported as well, but not as the only sources. And we cannot expect JohnThorne to have access to this material or to be forced to include it in articles. My earlier complaints to JohnThorne were about the lack of depth in the articles, certainly nothing to complain to here about. The articles mostly were not useful because of minimal specific content about the topic, but are OK as starting point stubs. JohnThorne is "creating articles", and I think much of the original poster's complaint can be ignored. Legally Matthew Poole does not have to be credited, but under our policy must be credited with material copied. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: I'm puzzled by your response. NPOV of course doesn't apply to anything but "encyclopedic content", and certainly not here. As an Admin you must know that. You also suggest much of my complaint can be ignored, but most of it was about " problems with original research, copyright and plagiarism" carrying on for almost six years despite warnings, which I don't think are things that should be ignored. I will however say that I've received a reasonable explanation as to why he reinserted a post related to the Tower of Babel that had been reverted, so I'm not particularly concerned about that although his edit still I think failed NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Writing an article about a political or religious dispute and including only one POV is advocacy. One doesn't have to give everything in full, but one must write the article to make it clear that there isn't just one position. As a minimum an encyclopedia article must indicate that something is controversial. Using references only from biased sources representing one position similarly is advocacy. I am not sure the ed. recognizes to what degree these interpretations are disputed. Obviously one cannot include all views, but the idea of writing about the OT using only Christian sources of any vintage is appalling. I do agree that we do not privilege in matters like this the current general POV, but consider others equally, and the suggestion we omit the orthodox POV was biased also. But this is not really a ANI problem, since the contributor does seem to show some understanding by now. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My main concern with the editor has never been POV. While I'm concerned about the copy-pasting from fringe sources, I would also be concerned if he started making his articles by copy-pasting without proper attribution from a balanced variety of pre-critical religious and academic religious and secular sources. As far as the issue of attribution goes, I'm not encouraged to see in his response, "Please check the timeline of the articles to see that I immediately adapt to many good advice from various users (as much as I could) in my subsequent articles. . . . Contrary to the allegations, I respect the authorship highly and never intend to take credits on others' works, therefore each citation is carefully noted and, in my opinion, kept as close as possible to the authors' intent as far as permitted." That strikes me as evidencing denial, and a continuation of a long copy-paste problem which he hasn't acknowledged. If it was made clear to a reader when, say, an 18th century source is being quoted, then we might have an occasion but very fixable issue with undue weight or something like that here and there. His talk page, and it archives, show people repeatedly trying to explain attribution. He says something like, "thank you for your positive contribution. I always attribute correctly, and will try to take your good advice into account." and then cranks out another ten articles by copy-paste. It's not just a POV thing -- it's several problems all mixed together in a virtual cut-and-paste assembly-line article factory. The impression he gives that he "does seem to show some understanding by now," is, I think, part of why he's managed to continue to be able to crank these articles out this way for years despite people repeatedly talking to him. Alephb (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Some clarifications:

1. Timeline: Many articles listed here labeled as "bad" have been made a while ago, and since then a number of them underwent improvements. The most recently created articles already incorporated various inputs from other users. I think this should be taken into consideration as how far the contributions have evolved to improve throughout the years and will still be enhanced further for sure! Objectionable sources have not used anymore (for the sake of civility), because there are more other sources available (from many POVs). Nonetheless I wish to stay clear from controversies that distract the attention from the common goal to make a good article in Wikipedia. Throughout the years, I have consulted Wikipedia readers (not limited from certain thoughts, but also not of wide range of denominations) about their opinions, and the choice of contents is basically based on the gathered information, forming a decent start for other users (who would be as eager, naively I thought) to modify and improve. Now as the articles gain more attention, obviously more materials could be integrated. This reflects the expansion and evolution of the sources I used to start new articles, cognizant of many more shortcomings to overcome.
2. Process: In the past few months there has been a pattern of working together (in "good faith", not to count unnecessary rants and ever growing list of "questionable sources") as follows:
   1. an article was created by a user
   2. the article was edited by a second user (at the moment, mostly by deleting parts that don't suit the personal POV of the particular user)
   3. the first user added more information from other sources to improve the article
   4. all users to add more information, corrections, comments to the article

The steps could be polished and oiled to work well in an amicable environment of Wikipedia, while allowing every user to develop the necessary editing skills, with mutual respect despite the diversity of educational backgrounds. This is what I hope to enliven in contributing to Wikipedia. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you perhaps point to some examples of articles that you think you have raised to a satisfactory standard? I looked at some of your recent edits; some were at least heading in the right direction, but they did not achieve anything like a worthwhile article. The most generous outcome that I might support would be to ban you from creating new articles, to be reviewed after 12 months, so that you should concentrate on improving the many existing poor-quality pages that you have started. – Fayenatic London 19:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to suggest an indefinite block from en-WP with a standard 6 month offer, the reason being years of not listening to people telling him that his editing violates COPYVIO and NPOV and him responding politely and not changing a whit. I cannot know if it is a CIR or a IDHT issue, but this person is systematically harming WP. If, when they appeal, they can show evidence that they have added non-COPYVIO, well sourced, NPOV content that completes a thought, at some other WMF project, well that would be great. But the section header says it all and their responses show no real lights coming on. The OP did a solid job of legwork, in showing there is a problem, and doing nothing is not a good option. This is not a happy thing, but it is what should happen, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

As my last created articles are not yet up to satisfactory standards, per recommendation, I would like to focus on improving the poor quality articles I have started, instead of creating new ones. Given the time, I will remove the unacceptable materials and replace them with the appropriate ones to achieve the proper article standards. Peace. JohnThorne (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing you keep saying but you have not acknowledged the problems nor shown that you understand them by editing differently. You seem very well intentioned and that is what makes this unhappy, but when someone edits for years as you have, we need to take action. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jytdog and Fayenatic London that some sort of block would be appropriate. The indefinite one with the six-month offer seems reasonable that we're several years into this problem. If this were only the first or fifth time someone were trying to discuss the issue, I wouldn't recommend such a measure, but we're a few years and about 400 articles into this problem. I regret suggesting such a thing with an editor as polite as JohnThorne, but I don't see any realistic alternative. Alephb (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

As stated above, I also agree that some form of editing restriction is needed. @Jytdog: do you want to make this a formal proposal? Paul August ☎ 10:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Indefinite block with 6 month standard offer

Proposing an indefinite block from en-WP with a standard 6 month offer, the reason being years of not listening to people telling him that his editing violates COPYVIO and NPOV and him responding politely and not changing a whit. I cannot know if it is a CIR or a IDHT issue, but this person is systematically harming WP. If, when they appeal, they can show evidence that they have added non-COPYVIO, well sourced, NPOV content that completes a thought, at some other WMF project, well that would be great. But the section header says it all and their responses show no real lights coming on. The OP did a solid job of legwork, in showing there is a problem, and doing nothing is not a good option. This is not a happy thing, but it is what should happen, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a TBan and (hence) Article Creation Ban for a period of no less than six months on Bible-related articles.With a heavy heart but I too don't see any realistic alternative. Looking at his standard replies to numerous users at his talk and here at AN, coupled with the impenetrable evidences aginst his quantity-over-quality work-style, using fringe sources as references and copy-vios (and to a extent-POV) nails the deal. I remain utterly un-convinced that he even understands the seriousness of the issues and of his capability to implement the community expectations in his future editing. But without doubt, Thorne's politeness is truly remarkable!I truly hope you will come back as a much better contributor!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:--An indef is not needed!The problems are concentrated in a single area and a TBan suffices enough.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 14:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per Jytdog's reasoning. This appears to be the only way to bring the copy-paste editing to a halt. Warnings haven't worked, and we're now several years and about 400 new articles via copy-paste into this editor's career. Alephb (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC). Alternately, I would also support a TBAN. This seems reasonable too. Alephb (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• A block seems punitive and overkill for an editor that has no block log and doesn't appear to be editing in malice, and I would strongly oppose it. A topic ban is supported by the evidence here and would be preventative rather than punitive. I would say indef, but it can be appealed after a year. Perhaps editing in other areas will give the editor the tools they need to return to biblical topics at that point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support a TBan and (hence) Article Creation Ban per Winged Blades, and per my earlier comments. The case made by Doug Weller, DGG, Alephb, and Fayenatic is serious and compelling. Paul August ☎ 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• I do not oppose the bible TBAN as an alternative. Jytdog (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for biblically related articles, to be appealed after a year. I agree with User:Dennis Brown that a block would not be appropriate here. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per Alephb,Doug Weller and the others above.Smeat75 (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support article creation ban, but I would advocate allowing a limited window for a narrow sub-topic within a Biblical topic ban, e.g. permitting JohnThorne to work on the Book of Zechariah chapter articles over the next six months. This will allow for constructive focus of his effort, monitoring of his output, and mentoring. – Fayenatic London 22:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Question- how long is it going to be before an uninvolved admin closes this with a decision? I don't want this thread to just sit here until it is archived, I think the situation is very serious.Smeat75 (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the tban, but I'm not uninvolved. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

PBS has converted an RfC to RM (here), despite the fact that the discussion, which is indeed about article title, offers no specific new article title to discuss. Such an RM is pointless, and I don't like it being in my name. PBS should raise his own RM if he wishes.

I have requested help in finding a venue to discuss the RfC/RM question at WP:EAR, but would like to see PBS's edit reverted, pending discussion. I reverted once, but he reverted back. (1RR applies). Thanks, Batternut (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The action I took as a neutral administrator was taken under the community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War. See User talk:Batternut#Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Requested move 18 July 2017 for more details. -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

To fully understand my the reason actions one has to look at the history of Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the previous requested moves.

When I hatted a related section on the talk page I added the comment "I have converted that RfC to a RM because most people do not want to have to take part in two discussions and if there is a different outcome between the RfC and the RM there will be discord and conflict. So use the RM above to decide the issue." (see Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Qualifier for Islamic State article title. --PBS (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

What in WP:GS justifies converting an RfC into an RM? Certainly nothing explicit. Being an Admin doesn't turn you into a power user that change anything anywhere, or does it?

NB surely there is a better forum for discussing the RfC/RM choice than the ANI? Batternut (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

OK I will join the dots for you.

1. community decision -- same as Wikipedia:ARBPIA
2. Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions includes a section "Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016)" which states "Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply." as my revert was made as an administrative edit it is not subject to 1RR. I suggest you read that section thoroughly.
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions includes Page restrictions. It says:

"Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator."

When you initiated you RfC it includes the sentence: "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier. In my judgement as an uninvolved administrator, that is either a Machiavellian sentence (because if the RfC consensus is in favour of your proposition, then it will be argued at an RM that the move is already agreed, all that needs to be decided is the bracketed disambiguation extension); however that would be to assume bad faith, so I put it down to naivety. Which ever it is, if the outcome of the RfC and the proposed RM were different it would most probably lead to conflict and disharmony. So rather than let it go that far, it is better to close the RfC and run it as a RM. Changing the RfC into an RM save those that have already expressed an opinion for and against from having to repeat themselves. I can re-list the other advantages of using RM for moves, but that should not be necessary

Up to now I have assumed you were acting in good faith, but if you persist in arguing in favour of re-inserting the flawed RfC then I will assume that you are acting in bad faith (be aware of Boomerang. -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree with the conversion Using discretionary sanctions int his case is, in my opinion, overreaching. The only instruction on this page, regarding discretionary sanctions, is to observe 1RR, nothing else, discussion was civil so there was no need for admin intervention. Could this have been introducted as a move request? certainly, but was it necessary to turn it into one by Admin fiat ? Definelty not. I would say revert, and intercede only if it's needed, right now it isn't.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• To be fair, it's not malicious or anything, but it certainly is pointless, for one, RM is more procedural and less far-reaching with opinions than a RfC and there was no reason to convert it in whatsoever manner. Also, I do not appreciate how the admin is being intolerant of suggestions and is hasty in assuming bad faith, even though it's them who are clearly the cause of controversy in this affair. Furthermore, using ARBPIA/DS as a rationale is pure fluff and hence, essentially makes the entire reason for the conversion, baseless. --QEDK (愛) 20:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• As the last contributor to arrive via the RfC notice before the discussion was converted, I will say that I'm not 100% following PBS' DS reasoning, but putting that aside for a minute, it's worth noting that this was not the most ideally approached RfC of all time, even before they arrived on the scene. RfC's are meant to be A) concise and B) as close to completely neutral as possible. Instead the OP here (Batternut) opened the RfC with a massive list detailing how all of the objections to their preffered approach had actually been addressed already. I AGF that the editor does not have much experience with the process and was not meaning to do anything improper, but that puts the RfC off on the wrong foot to start with.

I don't know that this non-neutral framing would have had a huge impact in this case; I think had the RfC been allowed to continue, the regular editors local to that page (who seem to have settled on an idiosyncratic approach that is not, in my opinion, remotely policy consistent) would have voted one way, and other veteran editors arriving via the RfC would have voted as community consensus on such matters dictate. So if anything, PBS actually seems to have done a huge favour to Batternut's position when he closed the RfC as he did. Whether the RfC being poorly formed had anything to do with the decision, I do not know.

What I do know is that it would be much simpler to restart the RfC, either by reformatting/restarting it, or just re-adding the tags and restarting the 30-day clock. RM or RfC, the discussion should be promoted in a variety of lists and forums to save editorial time down the line, because here's what I see in this discussion: this is one of our most high-profile articles right now, and for some reason a collection of editors there want to ignore the most basic community consensus regarding our article naming policy (particularly WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, and WP:PRECISE), and they want to do so for a pretty much moral reason that is explicitly disallowed by WP:TITLE.

Now, I don't mention all of this because I want to transport the content discussion here to ANI, where it of course does not belong. Rather I mention it because it seems to me that the mess that has been created here means that, if the discussion ends where it is now, Batternut may feel he is entitled to claim a consensus on a matter that, in my opinion, does not have a chance of surviving broader community scrutiny. Even if the article is moved, all it is going to accomplish is to cause the many, many veteran editors who might be reading that high-traffic article on a given day to flood into the talk page trying to figure out how such an important topic got divorced from COMMONNAME. And when the mess that lead to this WP:OR outcome becomes known, somebody is definitely going to take the matter to WP:Move review, given the procedural nightmare here.

I think it would be easier to simply restart the RfC (ideally reformatted by a neutral third party), rather than waste all of the editorial time that will be sapped up by two (or more) additional threads in multiple forums. The discussion can be highly promoted to get decent community turn out, and the larger community can give what I think is the inevitable verdict here: just because we don't want to use the term "Islamic State" because some fear it will legitimate a nightmare group of extremist thugs, doesn't mean we can ignore the WP:WEIGHT of WP:Reliable sources when they choose to do so. That's just the reality of the world right now, and on this project, we attempt to accurately reflect reality, not shape it. Just my two cents. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS's intervention on Batternut's R?? was fully justified. The whole Batternut effort was really bothering me from a process point of view but I could not quite articulate why. Either Batternut is trying an underhanded way to achieve dozens of page renames at once (against many many failed RPMs) or he is process inept. Given has posts here and on User_talk:PBS trying to bully PBS... I'm leaning toward the first. Legacypac (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is going to get moved without an RM, and there no way that any RM for this article is going to quietly sneak under the radar! Given the heat that previous RMs have generated, testing the water (/boiling oil) before jumping in seemed sensible. Re bullying, please compare PBS's postings on User_talk:Batternut with mine on his. Batternut (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see anything that outwardly shouts a nefarious intent in Batternut's approach. Granted, I just arrived via the RfC and don't know the history here, but I nevertheless AGF as to that. I do think the RfC effort was a bit of a mess (over what is probably a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of success, as I don't think the community will allow a change of the title for an article as important as ISIL's for purely ideological reasons, taking it out of lockstep with the vast majority of sources).

As to "bullying", I don't think the behaviour of either party on the other's talk page has been especially problematic. Obviously they disagree, but the discussion, if not exactly rainbows and sunshine, is civil. I will say that maybe the only inappropriate part was launching this ANI without first discussing the matter; PBS's conversion (regardless of whether review holds it as advisable) was accompanied by a polite explanation of his reasoning and an offer to discuss any challenge on his TP. Batternut may have thought he had dubious odds of convincing PBS to reverse his decision, but not even trying before launching the ANI is just not the wisest way to deal with any difference of opinion, let alone a challenge to an administrative action. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The top of the ISIL talk page details how many previous move requests have failed. It's not some local consensus, its had hundreds of editors input. Batternut is being disruptive and sneaky here. He's no new editor, trying to bully PBS with mention of Arbcom appeal on PBS talk. Legacypac (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Me bully PBS? PBS threatened me with 1RR admin action for reverting the ISIL talk page when the sanctions apply 1RR to articles only, not talk pages! Batternut (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Being a general sanction, admin are empowered to do "...any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." They have a great deal of latitude. Of course, they are accountable for their actions, which is why we are here, and it seem to me that his actions are within policy and both the spirit and letter of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is the source of the authority for his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The admin has this power, yes, and he may have felt smooth functioning would be ensured by his actions (even though not quite to the letter, as no warning was given beforehand as required the GS that you linked). However I concur with those that have reckoned the result is a mess, and I have withdrawn this request. Batternut (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

PBS has set me three challenges, by way of request to revert back to an RfC:

1. Why was my RfC not neutrally worded?

In hindsight, a title Should this article be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)" would have been more RfC compliant than This article should be renamed "Islamic State (to-be-decided qualifier)", likewise my subsequent lengthy arguments should have been placed after some brief statement and signature, as per WP:RFC. I concede Snow Rise's observation "the editor does not have much experience with the process"!

2. Why does the sentence "Note that this is an RFC, not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD). If the consensus is to rename, then a subsequent discussion can choose the qualifier" not have the capacity to sow discord?

That is an impossibly high bar... Everything about ISIL and its name produces discord. However, having read the previous renaming discussions, I had hoped that the issue would be easier to deal with one piece at a time, ie be more focussed, and generate fewer tirades.

3. Why I used 'biased' language in the ANI section title "unwelcome conversion of RfC to RM"?

Without an objection to this conversion there is no incident. I think the term "unwelcome" is a milder descriptor than the average in these woods.

Batternut (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just dropping a note that although it's preferred to use a neutral ANI title, if they're filed with regards to actions of one person, it is automatically accusatory and since it's your perception that it's unwelcome, and it's not exactly of an insulting nature, there's really no problem. PBS is a bit too hasty with their words is what I feel. This is a pretty small affair and nothing to be worked up about. --QEDK (愛) 08:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I presume that by "biased" that PBS meant that the conversion was "unwelcome" to Batternut, but not necessarily other editors working on that page or taking part in the discussion. But as you say, section titles at ANI are almost always taken to reflect the particular perspective of the person filing them. At least, that's how I always parse them. And while it's good if editors avoid inflammatory terms or pre-judgement of the issue they are putting before admins and the community, there's no requirement for strict neutrality; this would be an unworkable bar, since the very nature of this space is that a dispute has almost always preceded the need for a thread; the entire point of these discussions is to provide insight and action that may end up reflecting the entire perspective of the OP as being right or wrong, but the forum exists to give them the opportunity to present their perspective exactly as they see it (barring arbitrary complaints, abuse of processes, general tendentiousness, and such), which they are prohibited from doing in content workspaces. And as Batternut points out, thread titles here get a lot more accusative than the one they employed in this case. Snow ^{let's rap} 15:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The name of this ANI section is not very relevant to this discussion, other than it is a symptom of a deeper problem. The title of this section could have been "Conversion of RfC to RM" which is neutral, by adding "Unwanted" to the start to the section header automatically makes it a contentious introduction and does not help in consensus building. I hope in future Batternut thinks more carefully about such issues, so that section titles and content help in consensus building.

The issue here is that using an RfC for a contentious page name is either a naive mistake (of which Batternut would not be the first to make), or it is a planned strategy. Batternut seems to imply by the reply "However, having read the previous renaming discussions, I had hoped that the issue would be easier to deal with one piece at a time, ie be more focussed, and generate fewer tirades" that indeed it was a planned strategy; in which case Batternut needs to explain how, stating that the RfC is "not a move request - the qualifier is still to-be-decided (TBD)" if agreed upon is not part of a move request. And how it does not limit the proposed future RM to merely deciding on the disambiguation extension? Also and most important if the RfC succeeds but the proposed RM fails to reach consensus, how those who those who support the move to "Islamic State (disambiguation)", and those who did not support the move, would then agree whether the consensus lay with the result of the RfC or the RM on whether to move the page. It is in my judgment better to hold one WP:RM and decide the issue one way or the other, particularly as the RM process is tailored to discus proposed page moves and the process contains an optional move review process where the closer's actions can be challenged -- this is something RfC do not have. -- PBS (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I think you're reaching with the ANI title. Of course in an ideal world, every editor would stretch to find absolutely dispassionate language when dealing with content disputes, but that's an excessive expectation when dealing with the reality of such disagreements. So long as the title is civil and not blatantly, egregiously misleading, we have to live with a little subjectivity. OPs do come here specifically to raise behavioural questions, afterall. And the admins and community members who volunteer their time here know how to read between the lines on titles and claims, expecting at least some degree of bias.

On the other hand, I agree with most of the rest of what you said. Actually something you highlighted there speaks to the core of the issue of what seems to have inspired Batternut to attempt an ill-advised end-run on the normal process there. That "tirade" comment is not the only time that Batternut made a subtle but noticeable comment justifying his decisions regarding process because he had to (to his apparent thinking) manage the "emotional" nature of the countless editors who have reached the same conclusion in more than six RM discussions over the last couple of years. Batternut seems to be suggesting that these many editors are letting their personal feelings guide their decisions here and therefore he took the unconventional procedural approach he did because it would allow him to keep those feelings from "boiling" over, and thus allow the 'right' conclusion to be reached.

This is a deeply perplexing position to me, because it seems to run counter to what I am observing (as someone who just arrived via the RfC) as to which editors are allowing their personal feelings/WP:OR to guide their approach, and which are !voting to be faithful to policy and our sources, even though their personal feelings might make it hard for them. I haven't been involved in editing this page, but I have been RfC'd to multiple talk pages over the last couple of years with regard to issues involving how to refer to ISIL. I believe that most editors on that talk page, if they were to embrace their deepest feelings about ISIL and their desire to not legitimate the group, would be happy to endorse Batternut's approach (and then some), and change the article title to "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (horrific group of hateful sociopaths laboring under the delusion that they can actually make this nightmare cult into a state)".

But a high-profile article like this one attracts a lot of veteran editors, and even if they feel like embracing such personal opinions, they also know the value of neutrality and of policies that take our personal opinions out of the equation, by relying on our sources (and WP:COMMONNAME is at the top of the list of such policies in terms of the amount of community consensus supporting it). So I'm inclined to believe that Batternut has the read backwards here, especially given the number of community discussions on the matter that have reached a consistent decision to leave the article with the present title--the title almost all sources use, even if they could not possibly be more aligned against ISIL. The habit of suggesting that the many consensus discussions to keep the title of the article as it can only be explained by other editors not being dispassionate enough really should stop; I wasn't even a party to those discussions and even I find it irksome. And the argument just doesn't track, logically. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to forget editing on this site

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know if this is relevant here or not, but I want to be stripped of all the rights that I have on this site. Editing has become boring, stale and not fun anymore as I used to since I started this account, and it's more a hobby than part of my life. Don't get me wrong, I respect every user and administrator who has believed me as much as I did to them, and without them, I don't think I would have got this far, with all of these accomplishments and rights. I placed a "Retired" template on my userpages weeks back and I still can't quit editing. So, the only think that's left is, the hardest thing to make, blocking me indefinitely. I have more important things to do in life than this. Nickag989^talk 17:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's an viable option. Have you read about courtesy vanishing? Alex Shih^Talk 17:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You might want to look at this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the extended usergroups per your request - should you return just drop by WP:PERM if you would like to re-request. Best wishes, — xaosflux ^Talk 17:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot guys. Can we end this nomination now? Nickag989^talk 17:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ClueBot NG - tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=View&id=3088676 is 404

https://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=View&id=3088676 is 404. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, but administrators can't do anything about it. I'm honestly not sure where the proper place to report this is, but I can post a note at User talk:ClueBot Commons. Hopefully, someone who knows what they're doing will see it there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG says: Non-administrators can report a malfunctioning bot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 86.156.63.33 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If it was running amok and damaging the encyclopaedia, yes, we would block it to protect the encyclopaedia but in this case, it appears to be linking to a defunct page so no use needed of admin tools and we would refer to people with the technical knowledge to fix this. Thank you for flagging it up. 🙂 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Help with edit-warring user

Help. A little over two days ago I made this edit to Dacha, which I thought would be completely uncontroversial, only to have it reverted almost immediately by User:JesseRafe with a personal attack on me. I restored it, calling on him to make his objections, if he has any, on the talk page, only to have User:FlightTime falsely claim that WP:BURDEN, which explicitly refers only to the burden of providing citations for content, instead requires anyone who wants to make any change to a WP page to discuss it first. Rather than edit-war, I then opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining what I'd done and why, and inviting the two editors who had reverted me, or anyone else who had some argument to make against it, to make it and discuss what should be done. I then let it be for more than two days, to give plenty of time for discussion, and hearing no objection I restored my edit. Within a minute User:FlightTime had reverted it, and posted on my talk page with no attempt at argument, explanation, or anything else, but simply a warning that I faced being blocked for disruption, which as far as I can tell is exactly what he is doing. I need some help here. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't see what else I can do when someone refuses to discuss, indeed seems to have no opinion on the content at all (which is why I think this is not a content dispute), but simply reverts, apparently out of some sort of grudge or something, I don't know what. Maybe a prejudice against anonymous editors? As I understand it that is explicitly contrary to WP policy. Anyway, could someone please inject some sense here? And if someone actually has some comment on the content of my edit, I'd appreciate any good-faith discussion. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

PS: While I'm about it I'd appreciate any contribution anyone can make to this discussion about another edit that User:JesseRafe repeatedly reverted but refused to discuss. I'm going to leave that one alone for now, just so as not to escalate this any further, but if I don't hear a reason not to by Sunday I'll restore it then, and will expect not to be reverted again without discussion. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you make a change and it is reverted, the onus is on *you* to gain a consensus for making the change, not on others to gain one for reverting it. A lack of response in a talk page discussion is not a consensus (especially not when two other editors have reverted you), and if you don't get consensus support then you must not repeat the change. If you repeat the change on Sunday as you say, without there being a clear consensus on the talk page supporting you, you may be blocked from editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's both incorrect in practice and in documentation. If disputed material is taken to the talk page and the reverting editors ignore the discussion, the editor is well within their rights to re-insert/remove/make the editorial changes they wish to. WP:Consensus (WP:TALKDONTREVERT) is explicit in this, in that it states "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." If the IP has taken this to the talkpage, and the reverting editor refuses to discuss, they are not required to wait forever for consensus with editors who refuse to engage in *required* consensus-building discussions. On a basic level that would mean any changes to an article can be reverted without discussion or further engagement in consensus-discussion with the outcome being the person they are reverted ends up blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed out a few words there - what I originally had was "A lack of response in a talk page discussion after an arbitrary short period like 2 days is not a consensus" (not sure what I did to lose that part). Other editors need to be given time to respond, and 2 days with no reply should not be seen as a refusal to discuss. Also, providing a deadline of Sunday when today is Friday is also not in line with collegial consensus building. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Well the IP actually opened the discussion on the 18th, I would generally agree that 2 days is a short period of time. I would say that 5/6 days, including a weekend, is more than enough time for someone to respond, given the other editors have been editing continuously in the meantime. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Considering that the edit-warring user already had two days to explain his objections, if any, declined to do so, and yet when I re-implemented my edit he reverted me in less than a minute, I don't think giving him another two days is at all unreasonable. I think this behaviour indicates that it's not about the content at all, but about putting uppity IP users in their place. -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, my involvement/edits were in response to, who has the burden (I should of just said "burden" and not linked to WP:BURDEN in this instance) of consensus and the edit warring, not the challenged information/edit of the IP. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@FlightTime: When a discussion has started, it's generally not a good idea to edit-war the tag on "very common" back in, but perhaps to find a compromise and copyedit that sentence into something everyone can agree with. Perhaps "Dachas are commonly found in Russia" or something similar? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile User:JesseRafe has once again reverted on Grace O'Malley, blatantly lying in the edit summary ("nor any explanation given why this CN is unneeded here", when in fact I explained it in the edit summary, elaborated on the talk page, cited the MOS, the only other editor to join the discussion agrees with me, and yet JesseRafe insists on edit-warring while declaring that I'm here only to edit-war. There doesn't seem to be any point in re-removing the unnecessary tag, because he'll just revert it immediately. He doesn't seem to give a d***n about the MOS. Please, someone have a word with him, get him to stop edit-warring and participate in discussion if he has some point to make? -- 76.15.128.174 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This is probably the SIXTH time I've asked to stop tagging me every single time you rail about some imagined slight on you I've made. All my edits are reasoned out and per the MOS. You are being hysterical in addition to clearly lying/misrepresenting the case, ignoring the BRD convention, and, yes, clearly, edit-warring. Your arguments can't be serious, 25% is "very common"? No, that needs to be quantified or removed, because that's clearly uncommon. 1,000 head of cattle is already cited? No, it isn't even mentioned elsewhere. We don't need to mention when a politician made a statement? Really? Etc, etc. etc. You do have an MO as a disruptive editor, because you are targeting tags that other editors use to determine what more work needs to be done to make the encyclopedia better. JesseRafe (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

RE cattle. Yes it is and it took me less than 10 seconds to find it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Davey2010

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I found a dead link from years ago on a Linkin Park song page which i'm not going to dig up another source for if i do not have the time, so this editor immediately calls me a "dipshit" for removing it. More condescending nonsense ensues as he says "you've been here for 3 years you should know better" as if removing unsourced content is amateur behavior. Immediately upon first contact with me, he decides to use profanity like a 12 year old. BlaccCrab (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Example of edit difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_the_End&diff=791962187&oldid=791929586

I think this is a nothing-burger; it's an inappropriate commit message, but Davey2010 was correct on the merits (of BlaccCrab's change being mistaken in nature). Also note that BlaccCrab isn't innocent in terms of using salty language: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive290#Ss112. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlaccCrab: This wasn't very nice on your part, either. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not remove entire citations, or urls from citations, just because the link is dead. See WP:KDL. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• You should've replaced the cite like any normal person ... if you didn't have the time to replace it then you shouldn't of removed it in the first place...., Needless to say this ANI report is probably the most lamest one so far and in short I have better and productive things to do with my time than to argue and debate over the word "dipshit". –Davey2010^Talk 01:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I apologise for calling you a dipshit ..... Not really worth being offended over but there we are I apologise. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oi, @BlaccCrab: can you just drop it and move on? If you want to be fair about this, telling someone to piss off simply for offering legitimate criticism is also what I would expect from a 12 year old.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Also your notice to Davey2010 was incomplete as it didn't say what noticeboard you were reporting to. I have fixed that for you. Although I see now Davey2010 found it without my help. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oh please, telling someone to piss off versus using vulgar language then proceed pretending to be diplomatic on someones talk page is hardly one in the same. "i don't need to follow the rules of this website because i've been here since 2010" is the lamest part of this situation, not my report of uncivil behavior. I can smell the bias a mile away if the two of you think calling someone a "dipshit" is equivalent to erasing a condescending rant off my own talk page. BlaccCrab (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlaccCrab: Telling someone to piss off is pretty darn vulgar. Davey has apologized. I advise you to chill out a little. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 01:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could I just point something out ... "Piss off" is actually more offensive than "dipshit" ..... You'll notice I didn't file an ANI report .... Thick skin & all that, Could I suggest someone closes this for Crabs's own good before ends up being blocked himself?, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Guess he should't act like a child and yell at people over literally a single edit then. It's almost like normal people talk to other editors calmly when there's no prior interaction. I advise you to tell him to think before acting. BlaccCrab (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Lastly, no one (outside of maybe the UK, ironically lol) thinks that "piss off" is more offensive than calling someone a dipshit. Glad the old guard editors stick together and take their bias to new levels though while they "oi" together and remove "childish comments" (irony again) from talk pages because they have temper tantrums over a 5 year old interview. 01:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@BlaccCrab: The fuck are you talking about, "UK editors"? I'm from Kansas. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just going to point out that Davey was told to "piss off" after calling BlaccCrab a "dispshit". It's quite stupid to paint these two interactions as disconnected and therefore equal. They are not. Quite disappointing to see an admin twist reality in this way (strike for: over the top). On that note, however, this is hardly an issue worth doing anything over beside telling party a (Davey) not to call people names and party b (BlaccCrab) not to respond with vulgarities. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: Fair. I'm not meaning to imply that one didn't cause the other, just trying to emphasize the "not to respond with vulgarities" part. You know, be the better man and all that. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Mr rnddude, it seems BlaccCrab is being treated really unfairly and Davey is being treated very generously. (I'm assuming Davey2010 is an editor in very good standing.) Calling someone a "dipshit" in an edit summary without any provocation is beyond the pale. And the idea that being told to "piss off" is more offensive than being called a "dipshit" is laughable. Cjhard (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, that doesn't mean that I think the lone instance of using an edit summary to personally attack another editor is necessarily actionable. I'm just concerned that the reaction isn't an examination of Davey's behaviour, but of the complainant's unrelated behaviour and understandable and mild reaction to Davey calling him a dipshit. Cjhard (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I fully agree with you, Ks0stm, that BlaccCrab could have responded betteer. Just that on a human-human level, you might imagine, that people don't respond kindly to being called names. So, while sub-optimal, it was understandable. By contrast, the dipshit comment was neither. I've struck my "disappointment" comment; it was over the top as it was and non-constructive. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone just advice the two editors to play nicer next time and close this? Too much time has been spent on this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title blacklist is broken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some bug in the title blacklist is currently preventing me from creating any user or user talk subpages any pages in any namespace (this caused me to lose an article draft). Please fix as soon as possible. Thank you. Jakob (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. I removed an entry from the the blacklist, but didn’t remove it entirely. It’s fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please review User:Therequiembellishere's behavior at Talk:White House Press Secretary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Therequiembellishere is a longtime and prolific editor. But as I also discovered today, he can be an incredibly immature young man who is also capable of being combative, obtuse, uncivil, vulgar and disruptive. In a nutshell, a content dispute, in which he was unable to provide the requested RS for his position, quickly devolved into childish, name-calling antics. Even after I declared I was done and demanded that he not continue incessantly pinging me, as a form of harassment, the pinging continued. Enough.

Here's the chronology, which started at the article, then moved to the talk page upon my request:

Here was my original edit, where I updated the article, adding two current and respected sources:

[257]

Here is what followed from Therequiembellishere, in both the edits and summaries:

1 - [258]

2 - [259]

3 - [260] His 1st ad hominem

Here I requested any discussion be moved to talk:

[261]

That's where it went off the rails. Obviously my comments are on the left. Here are the highlights:

1 - [262]

2 - [263]

3 - [264]

4 - [265]

5 - [266]

6 - [267] His 2nd ad hominem

7 - [268]

Then he decides he wants an RfC:

[269]

But by then, I was done - and said so:

[270]

Then, of course, I get his 3rd ad hominem:

[271]

Being done, I told him not to ping me again:

[272]

So what was next? You guessed it! Another ping:

[273]

I think if you're going to act like a child on this forum, then you need to be treated like one. Methinks a little "time-out" block is in order for this 23 year old, potty-mouthed disruptive IDHT and WP:POINTy user. As someone who has been around a long time - he knows better. He's been blocked several times for edit-warring - once indefinitely for personal attacks and harassment. Clearly, nothing was learned. X4n6 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So several things here. The main thing is X4n6's own unwillingness to provide a fact-based counter to the RS I've sourced. He's upholds his "respected sources" as cudgels when they don't provide as clear support for his POV as my source with a direct quote from Spicer (which is CNN, not some random blog). They vaguely declare things like "Spicer Resigns" (which offers no information on an effective date for such resignation) and "New Press Secretary" (which offers no information on a effective date for such an appointment). He stated his sources "clearly state dates of tenure" and neither hardly use dates at all. The gap between officials' resignations/appointments and their effective date is a constant issue of confusion in Wikipedia and elsewhere, but common mistakes do not make them correct. Next is his misreading "Dummy [edit]" as an insult, which I suppose is not the most unreasonable reading of that.

As the discussion begins on talk, he immediately opens with the first pejorative by calling me obtuse and to read Spicer's main article, which does not in any way differ from my edits or support his own, while continuing to fail to provide any direct evidence for his claim. He continues to act belligerently and condescending ("So do I also need to explain the meaning of obtuse to you, or do you get it now?") and then makes selective parameters for me to provide sourcing to dispute his own totally un-sourced spin on how Spicer's declaration to leave in August should be interpreted in some way to mean something like 1) he only resigned as Comms Director and not Press Secretary, 2) that he has been appointed to some mysterious transitional role until then without an announcement declaring so. I get tired of this actually obtuse and smug attitude and call him out on it, and recognizing that this won't go anywhere, open an RfC. He calls me a troll and declines to acknowledge the gaping hole in his logic, even though I have, however annoyed I've been, actually made an attempt to support my interpretation while he just spins theories out.

Regarding past behavior, he has his own more recent history of blocks, and the major "personal attacks and harassment" block he raises was the result of mistaken identity where a contentious IP (86.27.231.97 (talk · contribs)) had been modifying my edits to appear as such, and was quickly rectified with apologies, as the log shows. Accusing editors with different views on content disputes as "trolls" throwing out "ad hominems" seems to be a pastime of X4n6, which this discussion (a topic I actually would probably have generally been on his side of with differing tactics) shows.

Obviously neither of us is faultless here. All I'm saying is that his needling, snooty, sour attitude from the beginning without hardly any effort to provide evidence backing his assumptions didn't exactly lend itself to a constructive debate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International Project Management Association

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since the above page is protected from creation, so only administrators can create it. Can any admins shift the following to the main space after review it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MADRASS2014/The_International_Project_Management_Association

Regards.MADRASS2014 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not, IMO, remotely ready. --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

User:MADRASS2014 - Please explain why you think that that stub is worth wasting the time of the administrative community and other experienced editors to ask to have a stub accepted that is completely unworthy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the IPMA one of those scam certification-mills which will basically hand out a professional certification to anyone who pays the necessary fee? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

And looking at their contributions, MADRASS2014 appears to be an undeclared WP:PAID editor/PR person. They created Kenneth K. Hansraj, who appears to be a non-notable surgeon, and then edited nothing but that article for the next few days. Then, a month later, they created in their userspace Paul Mason (producer), who appears to be a barely notable TV producer, and edited that for a couple of days, before stopping and picking up two months later and doing a flurry of edits in one day before moving it to main space (a bunch of these edits have been rev del'd or oversighted). Finally, this month, MADRASS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace. This stinks to high heaven of undeclared paid editing, and I suggest MADRASS2014 be indef blocked, and their three articles be sent to XfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Reference to my Talk Page question: Why on earth you should suspect me whether I am a paid editor. If every one who had initially created an article on Wikipedia, he would have some interest of the subject, does that mean, he is biased? Then the total Wikipedia project's mechanism is suspected. Or do you think Wikipedia editors as volunteers, should be strictly without any interest over articles? Then why they should create an article, on which basis? MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And here is what I answered on your talk page:

I didn't ask about your interests, I asked if you were paid, a question you have not answered. Why do I ask the question? Because of your pattern of editing, which fits the pattern of a WP:PAID editor. You create an article, edit it (and nothing else) for some days, then don't appear again until it's time to create another article. The articles you've created are about widely disparate and disconnected subjects, and are all of fringe notability, at best - just like someone who is paid to create articles would do. You look like a paid editor, and I'd like a straightforward answer to the question: were you paid to create and edit the articles I listed above? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

My response to the above on my Talk Page: I am not a paid editor whether you believe it or not. Yes, my interests and involvements are mostly unrelated.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you outright deny being a paid editor, but you're doing some pretty damn fancy tap dancing about why you created the articles you did. So far, you're basically repeating the mantra "They came to my attention, and I thought they deserved an article," but you won't say how they came to your attention, and why you thought they deserved an article. Especially with the case of IPMA, you really need to explain why you thought it was a good idea to re-create an article about this organization when the previous article(s) have been deleted and salted. Until you can explain these things, I remain unconvinced by your denial of being a paid editor, since your editing pattern is like the ur-fingerprint for paid editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop questioning me anymore, I don't want to give every other details of my intention to you.

If a Spanish Wikipedia can have article on International Project Management Association, why English Wikipedia can't have one?

I am not going to waste my time anymore answering your borderline stupid questions; let other administrators handle this issue. If they wish let my account get it blocked. Bye.MADRASS2014 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

MADRASS2014 has been unable or unwilling to explain the reasons he created these specific articles, instead relying on generalities such as the above. Since their pattern of editing is so distinctly that of a paid editor, and they cannot explain their motivations behind creating articles about disparate and disconnected subjects, there really is nothing for it but to reiterate my call for MADRASS2014 to be indef blocked as an obvious undeclared paid editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Paul Mason looks to barely clear the notability bar if the sources check out. I'd also be looking at Chitranjan Singh Ranawat as well, which, like Hansraj, looks like it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Chitranjan Singh Ranawat article was not created by me.MADRASS2014 (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, but it's similar to Hansraj's, and linked from it, which is why I pointed it out as a similar one. Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That article's creator is still active, and could be asked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

On the one hand, I find the reasoning of User:Beyond My Ken to be persuasive that User:MADRASS2014 is an intermittent undisclosed paid editor. On the other hand, if we are to take them at their word that they are not a paid editor, then, in thinking that the community would think that stub was worth bypassing protection, they have a competence problem. Incompetent editors who are often indeffed, but here we have an editor who is merely making a very stupid request (unless, of course, they are being paid). In that case, I suggest that MADRASS2014 be topic-banned from making any administrative requests until the year 2038. (No, that isn't quite the end of the world, except for some computer operating systems.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Robert, I don't think you are an administrator or CU to come out with such a chaotic conclusion that I should be topic-banned until the year 2038. If I think, it is relevant I should disclose my real identity, I will do it via ArbCom mailing list, there they will be convinced, I am not a paid editor. I have contributed and created many more articles which are sensitive geopolitics concerned via my other accounts since 2005.MADRASS2014 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

What's this about "other accounts"??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, MADRASS2014, what are your previous accounts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since they are geopolitics concerned, I have abandoned, but still I can disclose them to ArbCom.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting to be a sockmaster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Let the ArbCom decides whether the personal safety or having alternate accounts is more important.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're really concerned about personal safety for editing here, your best bet might be to abandon Wikipedia altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) @MADRASS2014: If you do disclose your previous accounts to ArbCom, make sure that you also point them to this discussion, so they understand that the question of your previous editing is not simply a theoretical one, but has importance as evidence concerning whether you are or are not a paid editor -- as well as the usual questions about whether you changed accounts for your safety, or were acting to avoid scrutiny of your edits, which is forbidden by WP:Sockpuppets. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You alone can't force that on to someone, the entire community should decide that. I know well experienced editors have left Wikipedia or become inactive, even some ArbCom members.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the community should decide, but it can't because you won't give it any information to base a decision on, such as why you created those articles about those specific subjects, or who your previous accounts were. You say we must decide, but you refuse to answer our inquiries. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have responded you already, you should stop asking the borderline stupid question to me, reasoning why I selected those subjects. Better you get out of Wikipedia for some time and read more articles, books and travel, you will get the answer why sometimes we are wild in taste. I don't need to disclose my alternate accounts here, let the ArbCom handle it.MADRASS2014 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Your repeated invoking of "stupid" might get you a block for incivility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, if that really offends, I won't repeat it. MADRASS2014 (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

BB: In all fairness, MADRASS2014 didn't call me "borderline stupid", he called my questions "borderline stupid", so there's probably no PA there. But, of course, my questions aren't "borderline stupid", they're an attempt to get from MADRASS2014 the kind of information that will help determine if he's a WP:PAID editor, as his editing pattern would indicate, or not, as he claims is the case. His failure to answer those questions, when answering them would appear to be in the best interest of an editor with nothing to hide, is, of course, quite telling, as is his hiding behind "geopolitics" and "personal safety" after he let slip that he has edited with other accounts.

Soon, without much doubt, someone is going to assail me for not practicing WP:AGF, but assuming good faith pretty much went out the window when his pattern of editing was so distinctly that of a paid editor -- and, besides, as is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Undeclared paid editors are a serious problem that we have to stop sweeping under the rug and deal with, especially if it results in such poor articles as Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer), and User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The user's chippy attitude isn't winning him any favors either. His refusal to come clean about his past leads to the obvious conclusion that he's hiding something - such as being previously indef-blocked (possibly more than once) - and his unwillingness to be open also leads to the reasonable suspicion that he's lying about not being a paid editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I never got single cent from Paul Mason, Kenneth H. Hansraj or IPMA, but calling me as a paid editor, and tagging on the articles that they are contributed by paid editor, ridicule the entire project. I think some Administrstors should monitor these pages. If a fully fledged article International Project Management Association can have a place on Spanish Wikipedia, why the English Wikipedia can't have one. First this question should be answered before branding me as a paid editor.MADRASS2014 (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish article, while hardly a Good Article, at least probably could survive an AFD in the English Wikipedia. Submitting a translation of it and requesting acceptance wouldn't be insulting the English Wikipedia community, while submitting that stub and requesting acceptance was insulting. Either the Original Poster is a paid editor, or the Original Poster has a competence problem. I concede that my attempt at technical humor about 2038 being the end of the world failed. However, the original post should also be considered a failure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It's great that you are not a paid editor. However, why are you trying to promote nonsense like this IPMA draft? The first half of that is:

International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.[sixteen references!]

That is pure marketspeak, and applying WP:AGF I assume it was copied from a press release because if an editor voluntarily wrote that, they should be requested to contribute at another website. The sixteen references are merely a dump of external links found in Google. If it's not a case of undisclosed paid editing, it is a competence issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnuniq - Exactly. If the editor isn't being paid and really thinks that stub is good enough to be accepted (as opposed to being A7), they have a competence problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

After I read competence issue only, realizing whether I jump the gun?MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Now, I consider to delete the draft under {g8}.MADRASS2014 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to be an administrator let alone a CU to propose community sanctions in an attempt to prevent a user continuing with their problematic behaviour. That's the whole point of community sanctions. Actually an admin or CU could unilaterally block someone as a sock but can't unilatetally topic ban them in general. There are of course exceptions in particular, cases where discretionary sanctions apply. Note I'm specifically not commenting on whether such a topic ban etc is justified or you're a paid editor but simply pointing our you don't seem to understand how AN//I or en.wikipedia works. As for the other accounts as others have said we can't force you to disclose them but if your behaviour is causing concern your refusal to disclose them may increase our concerns. If you wish to disclose them to arbcom that would be a good solution, as others have said you should also inform them of this thread. I suggest you do so rather than getting into pointless arguments like above. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email.MADRASS2014 (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's fine. Which ArbCom members, please? I would like them to understand why the information is significant, and revealing who you told should not be a privacy issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You could always ask them individually, whether they've received communications from this user, and point them to this discussion. Given that he might be lying about other things, his claim to have contacted ArbCom could just be a bluff. Although the editor's poor English (see below) should be enough to knock him out of here on competence grounds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

English can be my second language, you can't block me based on the language perfectionism. Why I should bluff, even some of the yesteryear ArbCom members are now my real life friends.MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, they CAN block you for incompetence. Of course, if you're copying promotional literature into articles, the English might be better. And by the way, some of my best friends are admins too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Friend, getting blocked on Wikipedia is not the end of the world. Fine, you have got some Admin friends on Wikipedia!MADRASS2014 (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

We are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today. All we are today is Wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

You say, in the previous post, "some of my friends are admins too", again in the above post you say, "we are not friends. Maybe someday, but not today". I think you are joking with me. MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, some of my friends are admins. You are neither an admin nor a friend, at this point in time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That also I can keep as confidential. Let them take their own time and communicate with me via email, if they wish before they block my account. You don't need to interfere at this juncture. They are wise and power enough to take next course of actions.MADRASS2014 (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to Admins: Unless any of the ArbCom members request me to comment here, I want to be away from the discussions which are deviating elsewhere from the original issue.MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"When the going gets tough, the tough get going." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Since you refuse to indicate which Arbs you sent the information to -- something that can't remotely be said to be withheld for your self-protection -- I have contacted the Committee in toto, alterting them to your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs, and pointing them to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought you are a dedicated Wikipedia editor, I think you are more a vicious human being. How can you change, "I have disclosed my previous accounts since 2005/6 to a couple of ArbCom members via email" into that , your claim to have sent the information to several Arbs; most of other editors who are questioning me are your friends in network; that also one of the reasons many senior editors left the Wikipedia.MADRASS2014 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

In English, "a couple" and "several" are cognates. And, yes, we only have your claim to have sent the information to Arbs, we cannot know for certain that you did so unless one of the Arbs acknowledges receiving it. It would be easier to find out had you been open and aboveboard about who you sent it to, since there's not a reason in the world to hide that information, even though you chose to. As for the other editors here being my "friends in network", I am familiar with all of them by name, but I have been here for 12 years, so that's hardly unusual. If you're implying that I am part of some sort of WP:CABAL to "get" you, I'm afraid you're mistaken. I am a member of no cabal, and generally call them as I see them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised to learn that "a couple" and "several" were cognates. And even if they were cognates, the fact wouldn't be relevant here. ("Skirt" and "shirt" are cognates. "Sofa" and "divan" are synonyms.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

You (and the rest of us too) would be best off to just keep silent about this ArbCom business for a while, until or if something comes of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing evidence that supports paid editing. Yes, evidence has been presented, but nothing definite, for example:
They created Kenneth K. Hansraj, who appears to be a non-notable surgeon, and then edited nothing but that article for the next few days

Yes, it could be a paid editor, or an editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor. Seocond we have:

Then, a month later, they created in their userspace Paul Mason (producer), who appears to be a barely notable TV producer, and edited that for a couple of days, before stopping and picking up two months later and doing a flurry of edits in one day before moving it to main space (a bunch of these edits have been rev del'd or oversighted).
Once again, doesn't prove paid editing, could be the act of a zealous editor, or one that knows this person and believes they need to be here. Thirdly, we have

Finally, this month, MADRASS2014 started working on IPMA article in their userspace, and now wants to move it into mainspace.
Again, just as the other two above, could mean they think this person belongs here, or are juist zealous. Nothing here proves that they're a paid editor, repeatedly asking them if they are without proof is casting aspersions. Unless proof can be found , and obviously, it would have to be in camera to the arbs, this needs to end. Just my two cents.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 16:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I interpret the available evidence quite differently from you. I'm not going to harp on it, but in summary I'd say there are two factors which point in that direction:

• The pattern of editing - Work like hell on an article about someone of fringish notability, and then lay off of editing for a significant period. Rinse and repeat.
• The refusal to provide simple answers to simple questions about motivation - I know that if you asked me why I created any of the 100 or so articles I've created, I would be able to give you some idea about why I did it. Obviously the further you go back in time, the fuzzier my memory might be, but with MADRASS2014 we're talking about fairly recent activities and almost the only activities (at least for this account). Their failure to provide any reasonable backstory besides "They exist and I thought they should have an article" is, to me, quite telling, and screams out "paid editor (or at the very least COI editor) who doesn't have an independent reason for creating an article."

Does this prove anything? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder. You don't think it does, I think it's very, very compelling evidence, as do some others here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that this person's edits look completely like a paid editor's. Badly sourced and promotional, and their creation of Paul Mason (producer) involved many diffs of COPYVIO per its history. It is so odd that they posted here at ANI, drawing this kind of attention on themselves. So odd.

Of course we cannot prove if Madrass2014 has been paid or not, and their repetition of that fact, is basically grinding our faces in the reality of how vulnerable our mission and values make us to bad faith editors.

Behaviorally Madrass2014's edits are indistinguishable from those of an undisclosed paid editor who is WP:NOTHERE, harming WP by adding badly sourced, copyright-violating, promotional content to the encyclopedia. Their defense of their terrible editing makes this situation unsalvageable, in my view. They should be indeffed. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Jytdog. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Is MADRASS2014 a single editor? Above, the editor's English is flawed but very good, certainly up to the task of editing articles. But all this fuss about User:MADRASS2014/The International Project Management Association! This has a total of two (2) sentences. One has mere typographical errors, but the other reads:

International Project Management Association(IPMA) promotes competence at all levels for projects succeed internationally.

Aside from its vagueness -- all levels along which dimension? -- this is a syntactic wreck. I don't think I need to point out how or why. Now, I'm sure that I have sleepily perpetrated worse in my time, but not in something that either was so short or whose articleworthiness I was trying to argue. Can the person pleading here in WP:AN/I really have created it? -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"All your base are belong to us!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing Time ?

Will anything further come of this? In my opinion, either the community knows enough to take some action, or the community knows enough to close this thread and defer action. Possible closures would be:

1. Accept the stub that started this. (If the OP is a paid editor, this will permit him to be paid. It won't preclude another AFD.) This seems sub-optimal, but the whole situation is sub-optimal.
2. Block the OP as a paid editor based solely on behavioral evidence, a duck test.
3. Block the OP for a combination of incompetence and personal attacks and incivility.
4. If one of the Arbs advises that they have the case under advisement, close this without action to allow ArbCom to act on privileged information (but only if an Arb so requests). (As it is, the community has no actual evidence that the OP has written to the ArbCom. The ArbCom is trusted, but the OP isn't trusted without a statement to that effect by the ArbCom.)
5. Create a subpage to permit some of the participants in this controversy to insult each other.

Will anything further come of this? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh! As I noted above, I find points 2 and 3 compelling. But perhaps we should wait to hear if Arbcom has anything to say? Don't know if they can say anything but even "We have looked at this, but we cant say anything" would be useful. I do think this could be temporary closed/hatted for a couple of days until we hear from them, which should end the dramah. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added some pertinent information to the thread on the COI board. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support block per combination of #2 & #3. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support block per #2 & #3 - unless an Arb steps in to say that MADRASS2014's previous accounts show strong evidence that they are not a PAID/COI editor. If no word from ArbCom, then proceed with block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (That is same as BMK says.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support a block as per #2 and #3 unless an Arb advises not to. (Sounds like an echo chamber, doesn't it? Good thing we have CC-by-SA.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that we have a response from one of the Arbs, I feel even more strongly in favor of an indef block. The problems are very serious, and are not explained away by language issues. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, I understand perfectly the issues here and I agree that the signs appear to point to what might seem to be significant evidence, and I also concur that MADRASS2014 is tap dancing on his defence. However, although I am one of the most vigorous opponents of paid advocacy on Wikipedia in all its forms, the evidence presented here is not, IMO, sufficiently conclusive. I discount the language issue(s); MADRASS2041 is obviously from India as his name implies, and although English is an official language and very widely used in cities and by reasonably educated people, hardly anyone there (I have lived and worked in India) is a 100% perfect native user and almost all new articles from that region (now approximately 80% of the intake of all new pages) require some cleaning up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Distractive side issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't speak for anyone else, but the language issue had nothing whatsoever to do with my !vote; I didn't even take it into consideration at all. I understand that you don't think the evidence is conclusive, and I respect that, but I think your bringing up the language issue is something of a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Then perhaps you should read the thread again - in detail. That said, I wasn't discussing your vote. I'm one of the most vigourous opponents of paid editing in all its forms as Robert McClenon knows only too well, but I was summoned here because no other admin could be bothered, and following the discussion and looking at what has been presented, I am bound by our rules to AGF, whatever I personally think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry to say this to a very long-term editor, but you've totally misconstrued AGF. AGF is an assumption, until evidence is presented otherwise, it's not something you hold on tightly to in the face of that evidence. There's obviously no way that we can absolutely prove that MADRESS2014 is a paid edior, because we can't out him (even if we have the evidence to do so), we can't force him to tell the truth, we can't do anything except line up the available evidence and try to see what it says. I understand that you don't find it convincing, and that's fine, but don't wave AGF as the reason, the assumption of MADRASS2014's good faith is long out the window: you yourself pointed at his "tap dancing" around instead of providing straight-forward answer. As is often said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, it's our starting position until such time as it's no longer tenable -- very much like the presumption of innocence in the American legal system (which could do with a third verdict, that of "Not proven" to go along with "Guilty" and "Not Guilty".) If, as you seem to indicate, you "personally" think that MADRASS2014 is a paid editor, then your !vote to "oppose" doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that is your primary responsibility, both as an admin and as an editor, not to bend over backwards and twist yourself into a pretzel giving someone the unwarranted benefit of the doubt. As for the question of MADRASS2014's poor English skills - yes, I read the discussion, and if you read it again carefully, you'll see that that question was brought up in the context of asking how the editor's skills could be so poor in this discussion, and on his talk page, but relatively good in the articles he created. Where did that ability come from? Does it indicate copyright violations in the article? That's a very relevant question when discussing possible paid editing, don't you think? That was the context, not "let's block this person because they don't have good English skills." Again, it's totally a red herring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC) BMK, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones; you too don't have a clean past. I will disclose my real world acquaintance with Kenneth K. Hansraj, Paul Mason (producer) and Project Management to the admins involved here and the couple of ArbCom members; they all are in puplished sources well before I started to create articles on them. As KoshVorlon indicated above in the thread, "...an editor that happens to know this person and believes they should be in Wikipedia, this dosen't prove this person is a paid editor."I will also disclose to the admins and ArbCom members an article created by me via one of my alternate accounts on a Latin American woman who was assassinated by a Drug Cartel is a Wikipedia Good Article now; who might have paid me on behalf her? MADRASS2014 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC) You failed to note the end of that story, in which the complainant was found to be a sockmaster and was indef'd.[274] Also, it was 7 1/2 years ago. What was your ID at that time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC) User:Kudpung, User:Beyond My Ken I will comment on Option 3 that I wasn't referring to the OP's lack of command of English as incompetence. I don't expect everyone to have attended an American elementary school, an American high school (which is of course taught in American English, and American universities. I was referring to the OP's submission of a stupid stub and requesting that an administrator accept it over create-protection as having been an appropriate request to the community. I haven't yet seen an innocent explanation of the original request. Either the OP is being paid by IPMA, or the OP is stupid in thinking that stub was worth wasting the community's time. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken, please don't lecture me, my friend, otherwise we can take your aspersions up in another thread. I have never been overly enthralled by your version of a collaborative spirit, and I would remind you that at the end of the day, whatever and whoever posts here, it is admin territory and I will not be muzzled by the peanut gallery for making a perfectly reasonable observation just because 'you' don't like it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Questions for ArbCom:
  • Has any Arbitrator received the information which MADRASS2014 claims to have given to some Arbitrators, outlining his previous accounts, and the reasons he had to change accounts because of "geopolitics" and his personal safety?
  • Has anyone analyzed that information to determine if his changing accounts was legitimate, or was done for the purpose of avoiding the scrutiny of his edits, possibly as a paid editor?
  • Can anyone weigh in on this current discussion, in which the possible indef blocking of MADRASS2014 is being discussed, not to express an opinion, but to outline what the evidence that's been provided says about it?
• Thanks for any clarity you can bring to this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• I have e-mailed ArbCom to bring their attention to the comment above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken and MADRASS2014: (Just a note first that this is my personal analysis, not agreed on by the Committee). Yes we have received some information from them. My notes are:

• Their first account (around a decade-ish ago) was compromised and blocked without prejudice to a new account being created.
• After that, they created an account in 2009 (which was legitimate per my above dot point).
• There was an SPI which resulted in a duck block for a sock (but no blocks for the original account), they disputed that it was their account/sock.
• Main account was indef-blocked due to copyright violations after warnings (I haven't looked at examples).
• They socked with two accounts during their indef-block until they were blocked 10(ish) months later.
• Paid editing never appears to have been suggested (but it was before the current focus on that issue).

Therefore they are evading a indef-block at the moment, however this discussion could, of course, choose to ignore that (and hence grant an appeal by default). Let me know if you have any questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Callanec Thank you very much for your response, which I think gives a lot of information for those interested in this case to chew on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Block evaders must be blocked. That's standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef + 1 year autoblock IP range Per #3. —JJB^ers 21:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block per the information provided. I've been reading this over the last day or so hoping that there'd be good news, but I think the history provided rather tips my hand. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block and Site ban - It doesn't matter whether they are doing paid editing. This is a remarkably blatant history of systematic abuse. (In view of the fact that we now know there is a history of systematic abuse, there is no longer any reason to assume good faith with regard to paid editing.) It appears that they actually thought they could bluster their way through getting a stupid stub approved by lies. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Breach of restrictions by Kautilya3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kautilya3 was placed on a casting aspersions restriction in July 2016. Kautilya3 has transgressed this restriction with his repeated casting of aspersions on wiki editor Samm19 that Sam is a sock even though SPI had already settled that the user is not a sock and Kautilya3 also accepted that.

Kautilya3 also got this restriction from User:Lord Roem that they cannot even attempt to bring in any user’s nationality even if their nationality is stated. The notice says failure to abide by this would result in an immediate block.

But Kautilya3 has failed to abide by it. One example is this. Kautilya3 says to a Pakistan based user that they are "Going gung ho about Pakistani POV"

There are other instances too where this user has violated their ban 176.47.27.246 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is no substance in this complaint. Yes, Kautilya is under certain restrictions, but the edits presented here do not violate those restrictions. In the first diff [275] Kautilya is merely stating that some sockpuppets in recent times have been able to dodge the CU; this is a phenomenon others, including myself, have also commented on. He is therefore asking about a behavioral evaluation. This is understandable; the CU only checks for technical, not behavioral, similarities. The second diff [276] is likewise misleading; the comment about "Pakistani POV" is not a general comment on Samm19's editing, but a reference to a specific discussion begun by Samm19. So no issues here. Indeed under the circumstances Kautilya is remaining remarkably civil, and providing useful advice, while being accused of POV-pushing by a relative newbie. Vanamonde (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Insulting behavior by editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Cassianto has been repeatedly uncivil, indeed insulting and abusive (e.g. here, here, here, here, and here, "try and engage your brain when responding to comments" etc), in a discussion about the need to have an infobox in a certain article. Although the issue is evidently of no great substance but rather one of format & appearances, it seems to elicit extreme reactions from many editors. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Am I missing something? Cassianto hasn't edited since July 14 and is currently under a self-requested block. Has something changed that I am not aware of?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gabriellabalcells

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Newly registered user created an article about herself via Gabriella Balcells and was trying to remove speedy deletion tags. She also placed her personal photo in articles Daytona Beach, Florida and Virginia Tech. See photo edits: [277] and [278]. The user has been appropriately warned for all the edits but no response. Someone resolve this please. Thank you! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII - The article has been deleted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Supreme Dragon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

That was one long title. —JJB^ers 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Supreme_Dragon

User:Supreme_Dragon using "retired" template to potentially evade final warning or blocking and the use of archives seem to hide recent relevant activity on the talk page.

[[279]] All User Contributions between (19 February 2017 to 23 July 2017); [[280]] "Archive 1" (19 March 2017 to 21 July 2017)

Here [[281]] "Archive 2" has 4 entries total, all on the same day (23 June 17):

    entry 1 states, "Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your last warning Moxy (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)"

5 minutes later...

    entry 2 states, "Copyright violations are a very serious issue on Wikipedia, "Cutting back" is not acceptable, unless your goal is to be blocked from editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:29, 23 July 2017                   (UTC)"

27 minutes later...

    entry 3 states, "In this edit you changed the birth place from Lithuanian SSR to Lithuania. This is in direct contradiction to the outcome of an RfC you started yourself. Please self revert this edit. In case you have made the same kind of change elsewhere, please also revert them. --T*U (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)" See RFC here [[282]]

10 minutes later...

    entry 4 states, "You are still marking many edits as minor when they most definitely are not. This has now been mentioned to you several times, so there is no excuse for not knowing. Please stop this now! --T*U (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)"

92 minutes later...

    the 2nd archive is born (at 17:38) here [[283]]

3 minutes later...

    a retirement [[284]]

I wanted to use the talk page to notify this User about the possible vandalism here [[285]] This change should have been suggested first on the Flag of Tibet Talk page.

A ri gi bod (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

 Checking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Done checking; see my response below.

Well, this user does appear to be moving everything from his talk page and into subpages (archives) of it; I don't yet see where he's tried to delete any talk page messages or warnings in the middle of his "transfer". I also don't see any blatant vandalism at the diff you provided here - can you explain exactly what changes were made here that you believe may be vandalism? I want to make sure I didn't miss something. Also, I see that this user's last edits were made yesterday, on the 23rd of July. Whether or not he chooses to stay retired is his choice, and definitely beyond the scope of what I can do here. As it stands, this account isn't blockable due to the inactivity with editing, as well as the fact that I see no violations of policy since the user was last warned. For this to change, I'll need to see both happen. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look good, block? (I guess it's fine now. —JJB^ers 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)) But the last thing looks fine, adding a infobox is ok. —JJB^e.^rs 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem actionable to me. He can retire and archive as he sees fit. From what I can tell, he did stop the copyright issues after being told to stop, unless I'm missing something. only (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Closing time? —JJB^ers 00:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sir Charles Forbes (disambiguation)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am wanting to create a disambiguation page for Sir Charles Forbes because there a several uses for the name, but this requires Admin consent. I have a draft of the content saved in my sandbox should you wish to review it first. NealeFamily (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

NealeFamily - Sir Charles Forbes isn't protected. You should be able to create it without issue. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is after the section was closed, but...as NealeFamily was trying to create this page, an error was made at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that literally blacklisted everything. Nyttend (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, and personally I think blacklisting (*) deserves some sort of award now that it's so hard to delete the mainpage. -- Begoon 11:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threats about "personal consequences" on my talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MightisRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor, who has been warned for repeated addition of unsourced/OR/SYNTH material on multiple articles (not having provided sources for a single one of their edits here...), just posted a message on my talk page that among other things includes the following: " I am V.I.P. working for the British government but am stationed in the United States. I can easily look up all your information where you live, where you work, what you purchased, who you've dated and married (since post-1940) and find out who you are as well as your relatives in only 5-10 minutes; so you should take great caution with who you are talking to and are threatening. That's a personal warning, not a threat. I have no privileges here on Wikipedia but am in contact with several Admins". Not a particularly credible threat, but clearly intended to intimidate... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Bbb23 blocked them while I typed this message, so this thread can be closed... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism, personal attacks in edit summary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Barbiegirl303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding some unsourced info here and there. When reverted and told about the need for a source, the user responds with this. It seems the user is also a sockpuppet, as their behavior is identical with that described in WP:KIDSTVDATES, and coincides with similiar IPs and other relatively new accounts[286], who also seem to respond with insults when reverted. Basically, whoever's behind all these accounts does legitimate edits and mixes them in with subtle vandalism. Eik Corell (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Immediate indef for racist edit summary cited above. We don't need this, and people who do it need no second chances. John from Idegon (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed on indef - if an edit summary needs to be redacted due to racism, there's a clear WP:NOTHERE issue - never mind the sheer lack of any kind of activity from them on their user talk page! Twitbookspacetube 09:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indeffed. Probably a long-term abuse case, one of many in that topic area. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User recreating articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Gabbartmarketing (talk) has created the article Gabbart Communications several times recently despite the page being speedy deleted. Their Username implies possible COI. Requesting appropriate action be taken. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The article page in question has been salted since my posting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks SamHolt6 as always. User is blocked and the article salted. Alex Shih^Talk 21:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP blocked yesterday, editor returns today using different IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:175.103.25.178 was blocked yesterday for disruptive editing & today returned using User:54.252.96.74, proof: edits made to articles Green beret and Maroon beret using those two IPs, I can't make heads or tails about this user. Ape89 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I recommend the IPs be blocked for a full year. If more socks appear, block them and protect the article or articles etc. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I blocked the latest block-evading IP for two weeks as it is dynamic and it only has one edit. Articles semi-protected.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional behavior by OPamuk1967b

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• OPamuk1967b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pastoes777 pointed out to me that OPamuk1967b appears to be using Wikipedia to promote Franz Lidz and his works. The user's 5 year tenure here appears to be solely for promoting Lidz. I reverted Pastoes777 thinking their edits were POV, but upon review of OPamuk1967b's edits pointed out by Pastoes777 on my user talk page, I agree with them. I am asking for admin review of OPamuk1967b (which I think may deserve a block as NOTHERE or SOAP) and consider restoring Pastoes777's removal of the materials added by OPamuk1967b (i.e., reverting my reverts). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a tough case EvergreenFir. This user is not an obvious spammer because he actually uses reliable sources, even though they are of the same type. Therefore, admins, or editors, cannot make the editorial decision of mass reverting this editor's sources. I would suggest contacting this user and, based on his response, proceed further. But I can't see a case for mass reversions, based only on the fact that his/her sources are of the same type. However, if he resumes another mass addition of this type of sources to more articles without explaining the reasons, then, perhaps, he can be asked to stop until he explains himself. Another approach would be to take these sources to RSN for a closer examination. I just hope this editor is not trying some kind of SEO. Dr. K. 00:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Please look more closely. They're not just sources of the same type they are by the exact same person in the same format.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Irwin

In an exhaustive 2015 feature story on Irwin, his family and their crocodile research, Smithsonian writer Franz Lidz quoted the Australian writer Germaine Greer, who accused Irwin of tormenting animals and using them as a sideshow to his own showmanship. “There was no habitat, no matter how fragile or finely balanced, that Irwin hesitated to barge into, trumpeting his wonder and amazement to the skies," she said. "There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress.”[84]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeRoy_Neiman

In an exhaustive 1985 feature story on the artist, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: "When he was six, Neiman was drawing comic strips for fun. He always crayoned in a tall, black figure in a top hat. It was Abraham Lincoln. Years later, while researching Lincoln photos for a magazine cover, he came to the conclusion that the Great Emancipator was 'a vain, p.r.-oriented kind of guy. He was the first public figure to exploit photography. He created the persona of the good guy. He created Abraham Lincoln! Because of Lincoln, I realized you could develop your personal image into a positive thing.' Neiman has gone on to build his own image with mustache and cigar. Everybody assumes the mustache is modeled after Salvador Dali's. 'If anything,' protests Neiman, 'it was inspired by Clark Gable's.' But Dali had something to do with it. When they posed together for a picture in a New York restaurant, the photographer asked Neiman to get rid of his smoky stogie. 'Don't do it!' Dali advised him. 'It's a great prop.'"[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Hopkins

In an exhaustive 2002 profile in The New York Times, Hopkins told journalist Franz Lidz: "I was a poor learner, which left me open to ridicule and gave me an inferiority complex. I grew up absolutely convinced I was stupid." His only real talent was for drinking India ink, which impressed his school chums but not his teachers. In desperation, his parents sent him off to boarding school, where the headmaster told him he was "hopeless" and he developed a "sheer contempt for authority." He stumbled into acting at 17 with a YMCA group (his one line: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth"), studied in London at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and, in 1965, joined Laurence Olivier's National Theatre.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_urchin

In an exhaustive 2014 feature story on sea urchins, Smithsonian magazine essayist Franz Lidz wrote: "In the brave new world of fine dining, the roe of the humble urchin—a shellfish once cursed as a pest to lobstermen, mocked as “whore’s eggs” and routinely smashed with hammers or tossed overboard as unsalable “bycatch”—is a prized and slurpily lascivious delicacy. Unlike caviar, which is the eggs of fish, the roe of the urchin is its gonads. Every year more than 100,000 tons are consumed by people, mainly in France and Japan, where chunks of salty, grainy custard are known as 'uni' and believed to be an uplifting tonic and aphrodisiac. The Japanese exchange urchins as gifts during New Year celebrations."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokusai

In an exhaustive 2017 feature story on Mount Fuji, Smithsonian magazine columnist Franz Lidz wrote: "Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji juxtaposed the mountain’s calm permanence with the turbulence of nature and flux of daily life. The long cycle of Fuji views—which would expand to 146—began in 1830 when Hokusai was 70 and continued until his death at 88. In the first plate of his second series, One Hundred Views of Mount Fuji, the mountain’s patron Shinto goddess, Konohanasakuya-hime, rises from the chaos and mists of antiquity. She embodies the center of the universe, emerging from the earth during a single night. Hokusai shows us glimpses of Fuji from a tea plantation, a bamboo grove and an old tree stump, framed by cherry blossoms, through a trellis, across a rice field, in a snowstorm, beneath the arch of a bridge, beyond an umbrella set out to dry, as a painted screen in a courtesan’s boudoir, cupped in the claw-like fume of a wave reaching its grip over fishing boats.”[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Karpov

In an exhaustive report from the World Chess Championship 1987 in Seville, Spain, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: Karpov, who's 36, is a brilliant if colorless tactician, whose cautious game is predominantly positional, relying on an accretion of minute advantages. Kasparov, 24, prefers risky attacks, wide-open gambits, movement. He subverts traditional ideas of defense, dazzling and seducing the opposition by whipping up assaults from seemingly innocuous positions. In moments of crisis he seems to pluck brilliant moves out of his sleeves like silk scarves.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Kasparov

In an exhaustive report from the event, Sports Illustrated writer Franz Lidz wrote: "Karpov, who's 36, is a brilliant if colorless tactician, whose cautious game is predominantly positional, relying on an accretion of minute advantages. Kasparov, 24, prefers risky attacks, wide-open gambits, movement. He subverts traditional ideas of defense, dazzling and seducing the opposition by whipping up assaults from seemingly innocuous positions. In moments of crisis he seems to pluck brilliant moves out of his sleeves like silk scarves."[29]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

. In 2000, an exhaustive 6,500-word essay by Sports Illustrated senior writer Franz Lidz revealed that Sterling had a 99-year lease with the Mayer estate that required him to pay a relatively small annual fee and 15% of any rental income. Which was why for many years Sterling remained the sole tenant. "With no other tenant," Lidz reported, "the Mayer estate faces another 75 years with virtually no income from its Sterling Plaza property. By sitting and waiting, Sterling may force a fire sale."[7][18] As of April 2014, he owned 162 properties in Los Angeles.[19]

It's farcical. Pastoes777 (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

Certainly, it beggars the imagination that everything the man ever wrote is "exhaustive" of the subject, so I have removed at least that from all the examples given above as WP:PEACOCK words. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So, User:OPamuk1967b has 50 edits in their 4 1/2 years of editing here, and every single one involves Franz Lidz. This is either a person with a real thing for this writer, or this is paid promotional editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I've asked them directly on their talk page why they only edit about Franz Lidz, and if they are paid to do so, or have a COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well i for one consider him a genius composer, not to mention one of the greatest concert pianists of all time. EEng 15:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a long time ago now, but in 2010 on the Franz Lidz article talk page there seems to have been a bit of a dispute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Franz_Lidz

From the talk page (2010):

"I am a staffer at a publishing house in the United States. Part of my job is to oversee and monitor the Wikipedia entries of our authors. One of the entries that I am in charge of is the author Franz Lidz."

And I couldn't help but laugh at this from the same talk page

""When Lidz came to S.I. for a job interview during the summer of 1980, he wore black Converse hightops, a wool sport coat and a hunted look. His résumé read like a picaresque novel. He'd been a DJ, a soda jerk, a substitute teacher""

Pastoes777 (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

Some other accounts:

• DrakeAvers 13 edits. All Frank Lidz.
• Waikieau437 7 edits. All Frank Lidz.
• DetroitPistonsPR3 5 edits. 4 Frank Lidz
• Hypendicular 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• Hariman256 5 edits. All Frank Lidz
• AramingoTai 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• RebeccaCenter34 2 edits. Both Frank Lidz.
• BlogginHead 1 edit. Frank Lidz.
• QuanticoMadness 1 edit. Frank Lidz
• Wentround2RR 2 edits. Frank Lidz
• Tamerland23 2 edits. Frank Lidz
• Damcad95 2 edits. Frank Lidz.
• MedArts 4 edits. All Frank Lidz
• SingleDay66998 16 edits. All Frank Lidz
• SunRa51 21 edits. 20 Frank Lidz

There are more! Pastoes777 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

I mean, I'm convinced the WP:DUCK test has been satisfied here with regard to both the COI and socking. But given your last post, maybe you should consider taking this to SPI. If you get a positive checkuser report on him, the block will be quickly implemented, making it the most efficient route. You could of course debate the likely COI issues here and maybe, with the sheer volume of diffs you're unearthing, you'll get an admin to act on it, in a few days. The community here can always be your back-up plan, but please let me gesture you towards....the path of least resistance. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 18:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Checkuser needed All of these accounts should be blocked for unregistered WP:PAID editing, and the oldest one marked as the sockmaster. Per WP:BURO, does a formal SPI really need to be filed given the evidence here? User:Pastoes777, why don't you listed the additional socks you are aware of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a formal SPI needs to be opened.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That list alone was from a single page. I believe there are hundreds and naturally most are historic and dormant. Here is another recently active one that's been promoting Lidz in the introduction to articles varying from the boxing promoter Don King to the Blobfish. (both still current, go have a look) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wernick882K

For me sorting out the socks shouldn't be the priority here. That should be the entries. Literally every subject or person Franz Lidz has ever wrote about in his fairly long career has him on their wiki page promoting said work either as an entry or a reference.

In July Franz Lidz did a new piece for Smithsonian on Hannibal and now he's on multiple Hannibal pages including the main where he was fighting to be in the introduction but was stopped by other wiki users and eventually settled for lower down.

When he releases his August column in a few days on, let's for example say, Queen Victoria, this wiki user whether on *OPamuk1967b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or a different account will show up and bulldoze the standard "exhaustive" report sentence followed by a 3 or 4 line quote from the sourced article into every Queen Victoria on wiki that he can find. I can say this with certainty as he's been doing it for years. This isn't acceptable and I'd like permission to delete them (the promotional entries). Pastoes777 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Pastoes777

I for one am for it; some might argue that his edits can't all be harmful and that they ought to be considered on a case by case basis, but A) I trust you or other editors repairing the damage can use common sense as to that, and B) given the sockmaster's cookie-cutter approach here, and the numerous examples already supplied, it's hard to imagine that many of these additions are truly neutral, WP:WEIGHTed appropriately, and necessary to the articles they have been shoe-horned into. Plus, this being a case of socking, once that is established, you have a pretty airtight argument for removing them as disruptive. You might still run into the occasional WP:LOCALCONSENSUS argument from an editor working on one of those articles, so you might have to explain why you are removing a sourced comment and provide context for why and how its relevance has been overstated. But if you get the SPI resolved, you can then reference back to it (and this discussion) in your edits summaries as you remove the detritus. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What User:Snow Rise said. And props to Pastoes777 for pointing us to the unintended amusement provided by shameless boosterism. -- Hoary (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have removed a number of gratuitous excerpts from Lidz' writing that had been inserted into articles -- usually in the lede -- with no necessity for them to be there, as they generally add nothing except Lidz' opinion about the subject. I have not removed his stuff in a knee-jerk way, as some of it was useful, but the stuff that appeared to me to be there simply to promote Lidz I removed as "rem promo". I also added a COI notice to Franz Lidz, and CSD'd as "no context" a sub-stub which was nothing but the quote from Lidz' writing, with, literally, no context about where, specifically, it was about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work BMK. Thanks. Dr. K. 03:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap! This became much bigger than I expected. Well done Pastoes777. This seems to be a blatant case of boosterism/SOAP/paid editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• SPI started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SunRa51 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is truly epic. Thanks for the legwork. Evergreenfir, Pastoes777 and BMK! Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• KrakatoaKatie ran a CU, and blocked OPamuk1976b and other accounts. Most of the accounts listed above were stale, so we should keep an eye on them to make sure they're not re-activated. A job well-done by everyone! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Very good work: thank you all. But perhaps there's more to be done. I clicked on half a dozen articles that linked to that on Lidz: there was little or nothing to worry about in all but one of these, but that one article asserted that the definitive book on such-and-such a subject was an "urban historical" written by Lidz, citing Lidz for this judgement. (Ha ha, no: I terminated this.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• These will all be too old to do anything about, but dollars-to-donuts, other "staffers" of Bloomsbury USA include these editors:

• User:Reikishisugiru
• User:Lilycraftsbury
• User:Craftsbury
• User:Jrigas
• User:Sharkgod
• User:A4c54155
• User:Editbunny
• User:Jen of Iniquity

I think we all should be on the lookout for promotional editing on behalf of Bloomsbury USA, since they seem to do this as a matter of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• More work indeed; one of the earliest suspected socks of this master left a long-winded and caustic rant on the Lidz talk page, sharing the ire of himself and his fellow "staffers" (he claimed to be editing on behalf and Lidz via a kind of PR relationship with Bloomsbury Publishing). The screed ends with:

"So, take it from here, chimps. I'm acceding to the publisher's wishes. If it helps, we monitor the entries of 154 authors in all. Happy hunting."

Now, that's a very dated post and the trail will be cold for some of the older promotion, but there does seem to be a not insignificant network of sock and meat puppets here, and if they are organized in a similar fashion in even a fraction of the articles they claim, it's worth the community being mindful of. Anyone noting similar disruption via socking and hyper-promotionalism on article for authors that seem to be represented by this group should consider using the just-concluded SPI as a starting point; there's a good chance the CU will find a relationship. The length of time (more than six years) and the degree of effort put forth into consistent activities to plaster Lidz's name across the project suggests to me that we should treat the sock's assertions (as to the scale of their operation) with some seriousness. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just now cut some more promotion. -- Hoary (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• User:OPamuk1967b hasn't commented here despite being pinged multiple times. Given that their edits are very promotional in nature, I would encourage them to become familiar with Wikipedia's policy on disclosing the relevant information outlined at WP:DISCLOSEPAY. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

OPamuk1967b has been blocked for socking, per the results of the SPI referenced above. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.