Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964

User:KolbertBot is malfunctioning

Bot seems to be working fine. Nobody else has said they got spam emails, including me. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 16:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
spam emailing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.49.203 (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC) Checked a few edits, not seeing any issues in them. Are you saying the bot is sending spam emails? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?

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.

---

(Please note the difference between asking the question "Is this a violation of WP:POLEMIC?" and making the accusation "This a violation of WP:POLEMIC." I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer.)

The material in question is at User:Malik Shabazz, in the section titled "Don't Give HBO's Confederate the Benefit of the Doubt". --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that I did post a notification as required, but it was reverted with an inaccurate edit comment.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• AFAICS, it's a 98% COPYVIO of this, and a WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, but for my own education and to allow me to better understand what is and what is not a violation, is it also a violation of POLEMIC? For example, it seems to me that the "Inspiring Quotes" section on the same page lacks even a hint of polemicism, but I am not so sure about the link titled to "Does This Flag Make You Flinch?" I am hoping for some guidance on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see a violation of WP:POLEMIC. It seems a considered review of a forthcoming tv show, and although it makes social and political points, I don't see it as "Very divisive or offensive material" with an emphasis on "very". It may offend some people but then many, many things offend a minority of people. It's skeptical and anti-racist, but those are not bad things. It isn't "far-left" or "far-right". However, it's far too many words copied from a copyright source and needs to be trimmed. Doug Weller talk 12:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks! It appears that he he edited it it in response to this report.[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Also note that to get his full editing history you need to check User:Malik Shabazz and identified alternate account User:MShabazz. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Guy, please give it a rest. You got him to remove the material you didn't like; time to move on. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• As I said, "I find it annoying when someone assumes that a good-faith question is actually a veiled accusation. I am asking because I don't know the answer." You have successfully annoyed me by assuming that my question was in bad faith (it wasn't.) I am further annoyed by your ham-fisted attempt to read my mind (I neither like or dislike the material; I just wanted to clarify the policy). If I wanted him to change or delete the material I would have asked him to do that. Please stop putting words in my mouth. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 3 September 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.

Bizarre vandalism from a 30/500 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.

---

• Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Had to bring this up here as no one seems to have taken notice on this guy. I am talking about Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena, who has been on Wikipedia for at least two years, yet his contributions consist of bizarre vandalism adding implausible "See also" links to unrelated articles, exhibit A being this edit on a Marian image, linking an article for a Pentecostal church to it for whatever reason. Same goes for this edit on Shopkins. The user apparently admits that he has a condition, but while he may have meant well his behaviour is causing nothing but disruption to the project. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean about having a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

He mentioned it on his user page, i.e. a "special child". Blake Gripling (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

how does this mean he has a condition? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, that's some religious reference or something. Let's get off that particular aspect before more silly things are said. I do believe there may be a CIR English-competency problem. EEng 02:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe some weird obsession with his interests in toys, professional wrestling/MMA or something being juxtaposed to religion for no plausible reason. I also forgot to mention that a "special child" in Filipino parlance refers to special needs people, i.e. a politically-correct term in place of the now-offensive terms being formerly used for them. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The assertion that he has a condition is a total jump to conclusions, his talk page is completely indecipherable, which I do think may be a sign of CIR issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it wasn't my intention to label him or anything, it's that I was more or less basing from previous experience as I've encountered similar users before. I initially assumed good faith as what was suggested in his user page (since I wouldn't want to end up insulting or upsetting him or his relatives anyway) but his long-term pattern of disruption definitely needs to be addressed, once I found out that even articles on Marian images and other Christianity-related stuff are being (unwittingly) vandalised. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please, comment on Blake Gripling's report about Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena's edits, which do seem problematic at times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I'm seeing here is adding a link to his church to a few pages. It seems all his edits are being reverted, but I'm not sure if all of them merit reversion. All warnings issued were made after the user's final edit for that same day, indicating to me that the warnings issued may not even merit a noticeboard discussion in the first place. Has the user ever been warned about this prior to the last 24 hours? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of them have been outright inexplicable, particularly linking Yey! to an unrelated Christian network, or the aforementioned Shopkins edit. The problem here is he's been doing this wholesale, devoid of explanation or summaries, and thus is hard to track down one by one. He has also been violating MOS:NOTSEEALSO and a few other policies from what I can tell as well. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Without diff links to both the alleged vandalism and the warnings, it's hard to scour these edits and make any judgment. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's on my original message. That being said I am leaving this up to you to decide. The user doesn't seem to be cooperative, and at most has been blanking out warning messages meant for him to refrain from making further vandalism. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I've left a message on their talk page [3] advising them to come here and participate in the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @WayKurat: as I bet he might be familiar with this guy, considering his history of reverting and dealing with problem users editing Philippines-related articles. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Well, your message didn't work either, and neither did my notices. He simply blanks it and goes on without any care given. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I've taken another stab at it, posting a new message that reiterated the essence of the previous one. If the editor refuses to discuss or collaborate, I see no other option than an indef block, although I wouldn't be adverse to a shorter attention-getting block (even though these have fallen out of fashion these days). Let's see how things develop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Nope, still no dice with this guy. He apparently doesn't like to play ball with us. *rolls eyes* Blake Gripling (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So I see, he deleted my second message one minute after I posted it. Ah well, he can hardly claim now not to have been warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Because of his unwillingness or inability to participate in discussions on his talk page when concerns are raised there about his editing, and because of the odd, unexplained, and irrelevant nature of many of his edits, and, in addition, his apparent refusal to take part in this discussion to explain or justify his editing, User:Janus Nuelizson S. Azucena should be blocked from editing for a time to be determined by the blocking admin, either to encourage him to take seriously the need to collaborate and discuss with his fellow editors (a short block), or to protect Wikipedia from his quasi-vandalism (a long or indefinite block).

• Support - as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Considering his long-term pattern of subtle or quasi-vandalism (five years at most) and how administrators seem to have overlooked him, I'd say a disciplinary action is necessary. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support CIR block, this is a collaborative project. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support: For someone who never responds to attempts to discuss his behavior, he sure is quick about deleting attempts to discuss his behavior.[4][5][6][7][8] --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support and recommend an indefinite block. These edits are not constructive and the lack of communication does not give me hope for change. If the user requests an earnest unblock, I would entertain this and give a second chance. Malinaccier (talk) 18:26, 3 September 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.

TP access needs revoking...

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.

---

Wikipornialover (talk · contribs) (blocked indef) is being obnoxious. Can a friendly admin please set them straight? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:41, 4 September 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 BLP Blake

I'm not quite sure what's going on with this BLP or who should be held responsible if anyone, but the disruption is off the charts and we need some relief. I will list the diffs, and hopefully an admin or editor who has more experience with this sort of thing than I can advise as to the best course of action.

It was determined that Jameson Blake aka Jameson Andrew Gibson Blake did not meet the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability (person) and the result of the 2nd AfD was a redirect to the program they appeared in. The reason I'm listing all the diffs is to demonstrate the disruption caused by over this one BLP. I did not include all of the user names or IP #s with each diff but I did include some. I did post notification of this discussion on the respective TPs (where I could, but not going back in time too far):

• Jameson Blake AfD - The result was no consensus. Closing with NPASR. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 7:20 pm, 12 December 2015, Saturday (1 year, 8 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−6)
• January 2017 AfD again The result was redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: 737 (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 6:26 am, 22 January 2017, Sunday (7 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−6)
• January 2017 An IP redirect to BLP
• Feb 2017 Same IP redirect backto Pinoy BB 737
• Feb 2017 Redirect removed
• May 2017 Back to redirect Pinoy BB
• June 2017 Back to BLP Blake
• June 2017 Back to Pinoy BB
• July 2017 Blanked by User:Kent.dioso98
• July 2017 Blanking reverted byUser:Dw122339
• July 2017 Back to BLP Blake by Kent.dioso98] Perhaps there's a connection between User:Dw122339 and Kent.dioso98?
• July 2017 Revert to Pinoy BB
• Aug 2017 Redirect Blanked
• Aug 2017 IP created name change
• Aug 2017 revert of Pinoy PP redirect
• Aug 2017 IP reverted
• Aug 2017 New user Lokoloko12345 restored Blake BLP
• Aug 2017 - Redirect BLP to Pinoy BB 737
• Aug 2017 - User:Lokoloko12345 Blanked
• Aug 2017 Revert blanking
• Aug 2017 Lokoloko12345 blanked redirect
• Aug 2017 Atsme's A7
• Aug 2017 Lokoloko reverted A7
• Aug 2017 Lokoloko restores Blake
• Aug 2017 Revert to Redirect Pinoy BB 737
• Sept 1 Lokoloko Reverts to BLP Blake again
• Sept 1 Revert to Redirect Pinoy BB 737
• Sept 1 Lokoloko reverted redirect ^{19:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)}

Thank you ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The following are wp:SPAs, having only edited Jameson Blake article and info:

• Lokoloko12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kent.dioso98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also edited List of Pinoy Big Brother: 737 housemates#Jameson (Jameson Blake section)

Jim1138 (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: I've gone ahead and edit protected the redirect page for a period of two days. Maybe a little overkill, but that should address some of the disruptive activity. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Systematic spam linking on articles of Slovakian sportspeople and clubs

Well, this is extraordinary… Svk fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user predominantly editing articles on Slovakian sportspeople and clubs has been inserting dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of spam links. Specifically, he is using a porn site as a reference. This has been going on at least since June (edit from June), perhaps longer (?). It appears the user in question has received warnings for unsourced additions. It does not seem, however, that anyone has reported this systematic spam linking. More examples: 1, 2, 3. I've been trying to go about removing them but there are far too many. Furthermore, most recently the user tried to create a Wikipedia article for the porn site. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, those cites are wildly inappropriate. I've gone through and removed them all. I don't know why the user would do that unless they had an interest in bringing in traffic to the site. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe take this to a technical team also. From looking at your links it seems that this may be a bot that creates links by mimicking the last few words of a sentence. If so, and if released into the wild, that type of bot could tie advertising into reference links on any page at any time, and would need a counter-bot to find it. Make sense? I'm code-illiterate, so taking a guess here. Have to assume good faith, as, in taking a quick look at some of the history, the editor seems quite productive. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The site needs to be added to the blacklist. Blackmane (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Reported to WP Spam. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Brief comment - DailyXvideos seems to be acting as a sporting news aggregator - sourcing content from various sites and translating to English, sometimes combining (e.g. a transfer-list for the season). The text content itself contains actual news. Now, I don't believe anyone believes people who say they buy Playboy magazine for the articles, but it is possible to source on-line for a source in English and make a mistake (I presume this source fails due to lack of an editorial board, for instance) - but this is not straight up porn (though it is there on the side and top). It is quite obvious the site is doing this to generate traffic (as the sporting news is not accessible in any reasonable way other than searching on-site or externally (google)), but this doesn't mean the editor has the same goal as the site.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've raised it on the blacklist [9]. Blackmane (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I used this site (dailyxvideos.com) as source, because it provide slovak sport news in english, all others sites provides news only in Slovak, and I thought that in EN version of wikipedia would be better using english sources... Svk_fan (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe 'assume good faith' worked well in this instance. Thanks for the reasonable explanation Svk_fan (although from the looks of it the site may not be allowed as a source anymore?). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Good question, please somebody provide clarification if it´s mentiond site allowed as source or not. I can post sources in Slovak, but for me it doesn´t make sense (in EN version). So my quesion: Is website for men (sport articles and porn) in English better source as sport site in local language (slovak in this case), or not? Thanks Svk_fan (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2017 (CET)

Should probably be discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. You can use Slovak sources. This particular source - does not seem to qualify as WP:RS (not because of the porn, because these news items don't seem accessible from the top of the site and because it doesn't seem there is an editorial board or editorial oversight (or if there is - it isn't stated anywhere obvious) - which would make the site fail as a source even prior to checking its reputation, etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

OK but on every post there is orginal source/sources in Slovak language, moreover many Slovak sites used as source doesn´t have editional board (they only bring news from press agencies), so it´s the same :) Svk_fan (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (CET)

References

Hi again, so is this source allowed or not? Svk_fan (talk) 9:34, 31 August 2017 (CET)

No, it should not be used at all. Fram (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for the record... A quick google search gave me multiple hits to English language websites that have news and stats for Slovakian sports. So the idea that we have to use this one (and turn a blind eye to the porn) simply does not hold water. I would say there is no need to ever use it. Blueboar (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory's behavior at AfDs (again)

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 seems that E.M.Gregory, just cannot help themselves. A previous and very lengthy discussion was had, here regarding their behaviour. The bahaviour is still continuing in the same fashion unabated. There needs to be some form of control on this behaviour. The promise, of I understand and won't do it again has not worked. More formal action is required.

Here are some of the reasons why I an unfortunately raising this issue again so shortly after it was recently closed. [10], [11] These two are a reptition of the same point on two different AfD's, which would be better suited to a user talk page. [12] This is a purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page. [13], [14] Here are accusations of bludgeon coming from E.M. Gregory which is ironic.

There is also a general trend to respond on AfD's multiple multiple times, and to every single comment which is disagreed with. This is making those AfD's once again very hard to follow, and very crowded. This is the exact behaviour which was raised previously as the of concern, and it is still continuing unabated. Sport and politics (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whilst E.M. Gregory's use of BLUDGEON on those discussions after a single comment is utterly ridiculous, I also have to ask why you are adding the {{notavote}} template to these AfDs. As EMG says, these are normally used where canvassing or off-wiki meatpuppetry are an issue, which they're not - at present - on those AfDs, as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be a missing here.I am happy to discuss things with E.M. Gregory in an appropriate place, such as my user talk page. I am happy to do so with this point. It appears as if there is little foresight to make comments in the correct place. Personal comments are for personal user talk pages, not the general AfD discussion. If there is a discussion and agreement on the appropriateness of the inclusion of this template on a personal user talk page, that is better than having that discussion on the AfD. It also seems as if there is a latching on by E.M. Gregory to anything they disagree with, and then sprinting to make it a big issue. When simply talking in the appropriate place is better. Posting the same comments verbatim on multiple AfD's over the template seems to me to be less about the use of the template itself, and more about simply making noise. There are appropriate places to have discussions. These places are simply not sough by E.M. Gregory. I am happy to discuss this on my user talk page or on the user talk page of E.M. Gregory. Here and the AfD's are not the place to be having that discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• (e/c) I don't see a problem with the first two diffs – it's a valid question to ask and it's strange that an answer hasn't been given. Number 57 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It is the wrong place to be making the comments, the comments should be made on user talk pages, and not spread out over multiple AfD's verbatim. Doing so does not demonstrate a willingness to address the issue at hand, and is more about making noise. If a specific user is doing something which is disagreed with or to be challenged, it is better to address it with them directly, than by posting the same question on multiple AfD's. That is not going to resolve the issue, it is simply going to cause unnecessary duplication. Sport and politics (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• When I see someone accused of bludgeoning AfDs, I expect to go to his contribution history and see lots of edits to a single AfD, not one or two. And the "purely personal comment which should be on a user talk page" is nothing of the sort. It looks to me like E.M. Gregory has taken the previous ANI discussion to heart and is editing productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not accusing them of bludgeoning, they accused me of it. The comments are though getting very volumous very quickly over numerous AfD's. Sport and politics (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment  First of all, note that I supported the viewpoint of User:Sport and politics at the recent hearing regarding E.M.Gregory.  However, the current situation is considerably different.  Unless this discussion moves to discussing the clogging of AfD with ill-considered but verbose AfD event nominations by User:Sport and politics, some posted in as little as 17 seconds, this discussion can be closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

As little as 17 seconds, misses the fact that the issues are created at similar times using show preview, and doing multiple nominations and using show preview, then saving when all of the editing is finished is standard editing practice. it is not practical to say oh it only took x seconds, that misses how an AfD could have been created. That is though beside the point. What does it matter when a save button is pressed, as opposed to a show preview button? Sport and politics (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears as if there is a bespoke and unbelievable missing of the point of this referral. It seems that the issues are not willing to be engaged with. I am therefore required to withdraw this referral, as users do not seem to be getting the point here. It is pointless continuing with this, when there is now a minutiae discussion of when a Show Preview or a Save Changes button is pressed. This is a complete and total misunderstanding of the show preview function. As a result it is just a focusing on something which is a complete and utter misunderstanding of how previews work. I do not see what 17 seconds is supposed to be a comment on.

In Summary referral withdrawn. --Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

comment - just a comment, Sport and politics: you might want to think about the practices that lead you to making multiple AfD nominations that repeat an inappropriate template, before you criticize repeated objections to that template use (one per AfD nom) as "bludgeoning". Just a thought. Also, the whole philosophy of ANI is that the referrer does not get to define "the point" of the referral, q.v. WP:BOOMERANG.Newimpartial (talk) 13:11, 3 September 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.

Lots of silly new pages

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

Yeah it is getting crazy-I have marked some myself, take it you have also. Might need to see these guys/girls blocked also. Wgolf (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Also see those new accounts who edited MCC, pretty sure these are related. Already opened an SPI case but still need to add the new page spam accounts. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Several other pages have been edited as well by them-one guy edited NCC a couple times. Wgolf (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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: 217.42.40.168 on Liberal Democrats and others.

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

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

---

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

• Also blocked, and I've semi-protected the main articles for a while this time. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Unite the Right rally

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

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

I keep thinking I should do it but forget. I'm easily distracted. :) I can't do it from my tablet though, hopefully someone will do it before I get back to my PC. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket, MjolnirPants, and Doug Weller:  Done ([15]). GAB^gab 20:15, 4 September 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 to insert violations of BLP, V, and NPOV

An editor, Spacecowboy420, has appeared on the Manny Pacquiao page, inserting material that violates BLP, V, and NPOV, and edit-warring to keep it in; and is disruptive all round. To show why their edits are in violation of policy, I'll have to describe the content of those edits. They have been reverted multiple times by different editors.[16] [17]

• Editors inserts into the lead [18]: "Former two-weight world champion Paulie Malignaggi has consistently expressed his opinion that Pacquaio has used PEDs, noting that Pacquiao's run of dominant performances and knockouts stopped after Floyd Mayweather Jr accused Pacquaio of using PEDs." This is heavily undue for the lead, for one person's allegations to be inserted into the lead. Some of the sources are also questionable. The editor also uses the edit summary, "considering the huge amount of sources and content later in the article, this is highly relevant and worthy of the lede" - the reality is that the "steroid allegations" part takes up one paragraph, in a huge article, so is a false claim and disruptive behaviour.

This edit [19]:

• Editor inserts: "At the peak of his career until 2012, Pacquiao was considered one of the greatest professional boxers of all time". This was based on a source published in 2010, whereas the added content discusses events at least until 2012 (and beyond really, because to know someone reached a peak at a certain time, there needs to be time afterwards for a decline). The editor added a source to support claims that happened after the publication date. Needless to say, this addition clearly fails WP:V.
• Editor inserts into the lead: "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate." Among other things, this uses this source [20]. What makes this a reliable source? From that website:[21]

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

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

• Editor inserts into the lead [22]: "While in 2017 Jorge Conejo of Now Boxing stated "his best days are long behind him", "Evidence of his decline showed drastically against young unbeaten Australian slugger Jeff Horn"." Editor inserts into the lead the opinion of one contributor in 2017, making claims about the reputation of a living person, which was published in an unreliable source - BLP violation.
• Again regarding "however, following several defeats between 2012 and 2017, his contemporary status has been subject to debate", this source is used: [23]. This is a sourced published in 2011, used to make claims about events happening in 2012-2017. Again, this is a violation of verifiability.
• Editor claims they have consensus when it appears consensus is against them - misleading behaviour that is disruptive
• Editor deleted "In 2016, Pacquiao was ranked number 2 on ESPN's list of top pound-for-pound boxers of the past 25 years". This is an actual ranking by a reputable outlet, and is precise the kind of source we need if we are to discuss a boxer's 'greatness'. For the editor to delete it, tells me they have no interest in developing a proper article.

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

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

Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies

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

• 211.109.219.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 183.109.75.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 211.133.41.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.6.142.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

• 125.207.83.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) active as of now Jim1138 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

• 58.124.220.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• Also 128.189.173.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) –72 _(talk) 09:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

No, because we can't guarantee you will be around to instantly revert them every time without anyone ever loading up an article in a vandalised state. You have to block to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not such a bad approach really. The only we're going to stop this vandal is through boredom. So the choice is whether to constantly undo every edit stemming from one IP, or rely on finding all the other IPs they are using. And if they're more dispersed there more chance that vandalism will remain. Ultimately though, I think the easiest way to make them bored is by reducing the pool of available IPs, even if it's going to take a lot. Speaking of which, having just blocked the last 40 or so IPs, I'm now going to take a break. Someone else can track them down. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• 85.159.227.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• 190.72.251.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) –72 _(talk) 10:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a heck of a range of IPs - how on earth can we get a long-term solution for this lot? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Just waiting for the vandals to change IPs with every edit or so. Jim1138 (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Aye, these are VPN Gate proxies - they are usually quite dynamic and there's quite a few of them. A long term solution is to find a bot or another way to scrape the IPs so they can be blocked. Their availability should get diluted if we block enough of them. This user is operating off recent changes, so if you're reverting them please also check the prior changes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I did mass-rollbacks on many Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• 153.185.172.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Jim1138 (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

This seems to be a good feed, every IP on this list has been recently blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not entirely comprehensive. Special:Contributions/190.207.251.58 shows some of the non-canned summaries which are being used. So this feed should show them all. They're quite easy to spot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Here's some more of them:

• 1.176.51.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.104.238.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 60.238.238.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 190.207.251.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 67.190.248.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.237.12.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 217.83.114.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.175.148.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 220.77.156.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 211.15.119.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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

There is a dedicated filter at Special:AbuseFilter/819 that we've used in the past. I've enabled that and disbaled the temporary one. Also, you should know they are definitely reading what you're saying here. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A "virtual reality" mode should be setup where a vandal such as this can be "VR blocked". Their edits would appear to be made, but unknown to the vandal, they would not be. Then the vandal would happily be working away without any damage on Wikipedia. One option might be as simple as their edit appears to be saved, although this one was occasionally reverting their own edits. Another that their edit being only visible to the vandal for a period of time minutes to hours. This would prevent the vandal from easily checking; one could use a different browser to watch. Another might be that the edit is automatically reverted after a short period of time. It would get complicated for a sophisticated vandal. Jim1138 (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I've taken the liberty to merge the two reports, for convenience. GAB^gab 20:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

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

here is another example. A completely innocuous minor comment on a T/P of a (relatively) obscure article reverted with a strange edit summary. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Some more information on this is right here on ANI: just scroll up till you see the section titled "Rapid-fire vandalism apparently on proxies". That should give you some context as to what's going on. The vandalbot has already done hundreds if not thousands of edits. If you notice a similar pattern (recurring/strange edit summaries and rapid reversion of recent edits) on recent changes, rollback all of their edits and report to AIV. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 05:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This is surely someone using proxies and these should be blocked for a year on sight (in fact, Zzuuzz has blocked two of them for one year, the other is blocked only for 48 hours). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reblocked the third IP for one year as a proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the "derp vandal". Someone has been running a vandalbot for days on end. It reverts recent changes at random. The IP's do seem to be proxies. Sro23 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

All I've seen are undo-s of recent changes, e.g. this to RFA immediately succeeded by this to an article. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Curious if 190.79.25.143 could be this vandal as well. Materialscientist blocked for a month as LTA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Almost certainly is. The "derp vandal" did have an "edit summary-less" phase and looking through my contribs, it was on 31st August. There is no other way the IP could've undone an edit less than a minute after it was made without going through recent changes and that too, on such random pages. And that is precisly the MO of the "derp vandal". Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 06:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The things that turn some people on! Internet sociopathy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with 39.115.84.173 (talk · contribs) and 14.38.169.187 (talk · contribs)? GAB^gab 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Not just anything, but it is exactly that vandal we're talking about - rapidly reverting recent edits and having repeating/random/no edit summaries. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 20:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose temporary block from making AfD nominations for Sport and politics

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:Articles for deletion/2015 Parramatta shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016 Magnanville stabbing
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Endeavour_Hills_stabbings_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Brighton_siege
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2005_Sydney_terrorism_plot
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rafik_Yousef_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2017_Islamic_inspired_bomb_plot_on_Australian_aeroplane
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Australian_counter-terrorism_raids
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2014_Norway_terror_threat_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Hanover stabbing

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

• A couple of these are valid AfD nominations, even if they were done with a boilerplate rationale; for example, as far as I can see we don't even know if there was a bomb involved in 2017_Islamic_inspired_bomb_plot_on_Australian_aeroplane. 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks looks somewhat NOTNEWS as well. I may close the ones that are heading for SNOW Keeps later on if no-one else objects. A discussion on an AfD restriction should continue here, however. Black Kite (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I iVoted to redirect the 2014 Australian counter-terrorism raids. But the 2017 Bomb plot looks solid, the IEDs were shipped to Australia by ISIS, would-be suicide bomber is under arrest, Lebanese security tipped the Aussies off, one of the IEDs was inside a Barbie doll. A quick WP:BEFORE would have revealed all. Target was one of those immense Etihad flights out of Sydney. Reasonable people can differ on the 2017_Queanbeyan_stabbing_attacks. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• So why isn't that information, which would of course change how people !vote in an AfD, actually in the article? At the moment it reads like a news article saying that someone is suspected of doing something. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just added it. But I didn't write that article; I discovered it at AfD. I have been working on expanding several of these articles that I did not write, but surely the point here is that Sports and Politics brought the badly-named 2017 Islamic inspired bomb plot on Australian aeroplane without WP:BEFORE (that Barbie doll bomb came up on a quick search).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would like to add to the list above the deletion nomination for August 2017 Brussels attack and the deletion nomination for 2017 Buckingham Palace incident. The language on both is copy-paste. On both pages, the nomination proposes the page should be deleted for the following reasons:
  «Simply shouting words does not make someone an extremist. Simply being a member of a religion and a criminal does not make someone a religious extremist. Simply attacking soldiers does not make an incident terrorism. Stating those things equal Radical Islamic Terrorism...».
  The words "extremist", "religious extremist", and "radical islamic terrorism" simply do not exist in either article. I question the WP:NPOV of a nomination which goes into loaded verbiage which is inapplicable to the article itself.
  Additionally, both nominations complain about WP:OR. Is the AfD process the right venue for handling WP:OR issues, or is this an abuse of the process?
  Full disclosure: I have argued for a "keep" on both cases, so I am an interested party. XavierItzm (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• WP:OR as a reason for deletion is WP:DEL6, but WP:IAR may be needed for the proof element.  It is not a common, but I made such a !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amonetize.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• (edit conflict) Comment  While I don't support the mass serial nominations, there are other resolutions available; and I don't choose to overlook that E.m.gregory has made a commitment to comment on the contributions not the contributor at a recent ANI discussion, here.  As reported two threads ago, he has twice made accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, [24], [25], which is a tactic I identified at the previous ANI discussion as a tactic used to shut me down at the AfD on WP:Articles for deletion/Teresa May (actress).  I don't think he is getting it.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Can we not make this a list of AfDs we personally disagree with XavierItzm? We get it: you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable. Those two AfDs, however, are seperate to the template and copy-and-paste Gregory expressed concerns with. More seriously, this ANI has once again displayed Gregory has not learned from the previous case brought here; behavior is still an issue and AfD discussions are a catalyst for it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:TheGracefulSlick:Please make no WP:PERSONAL. You offend me by calling me a racist on this edit immediately above. XavierItzm (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't recall calling you a racist. And I thought OR was only limited to articles!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

«you think every incident, proven or otherwise, committed by a certain ethnic group is inherently notable» is an accusation of racism. Kindly refrain from WP:PERSONAL. XavierItzm (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize XavierItzm, I did not realize referencing your take on notability could possibly be construed as an accusation of racism. Perhaps if I used words like "prejudice", "discrimination", "hatred", or -- I don't know -- "racist" in that diff you provide, it could be considered an actual accusation of racism. Wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sport and politics

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

• Also, check out her words here. Greenbörg (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The point trying to be made here is? The Load of horse shit was on my user talk page. You posted a hollow and false accusation, providing no diffs or evidence for it. I am going to call you out on that. If you don't like play somewhere else. It is beginning to feel like I am being trolled over the past couple of days, first E.M Gregory and now this. I hope I am wrong in that feeling but it does feel mighty mighty suspicious. Also sign comments when they are made, and post a courtesy notice to the person being complained about, of the existence of this discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The courtesy notice has now been posted. Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) While personal attacks and incivility are forbidden by policy, naughty words are not. Kleuske (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is trawling for issues at its worse. I propose the person who bought this here be given a warning for wasting everyone's time, and process abuse. Sport and politics (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Sport and politics

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

Sport and politics (talk · contribs) is continuously using bad words in his discussing and is attacking almost everyone who disagrees with him. Check here where he wrote words like 'Load of horse shit' and here where used words like 'salacious' and others after getting the notice. He seems to continue his sprees of nominating terrorism related articles. Greenbörg (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Why has this been posted twice? Sport and politics (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Also avoid incorrect gender pronouns. Do not assume all Wikipedians are male.11:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Zoyetu and WP:BLP

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

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

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

This isn't an isolated case. Zoyetu first came to my attention in 2015 through their activity on the Chuckle Brothers article, when they made poorly-sourced and opinionated edits like this, this and (ridiculously) this. Despite being informed of the requirements for WP:BLP not long after they started editing ([26]; [27]), from their behaviour on the Levy article it's clear that Zoyetu still doesn't understand even the basics of this policy.

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

I am writing in response to accusations made by both Softlavender (talk · contribs) and SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) that I have violated the rules with regards to some of my edits.

Firstly, I would like to apologise for these and address the points (and references) made by SuperMarioMan regarding some of my earlier edits to the Chuckle Brothers page. When these edits were first made in late-2015, I was new to Wikipedia and therefore I was unaware of the rules in place. I appreciate that some of the edits that I had made could be considered as sensationalist, and I have since recognised this. I was unaware as to which types of media sources would be considered acceptable (i.e. tabloid, broadsheet, etc.) and I have since made edits to the same page which have been accepted with no issue. I am working on improving the way in which I edit pages and since late-2015 I have created and edited a number of Wikipedia pages that I believe have benefited the website as a whole.

Regarding this latest issue relating to the Peter Levy page, I appreciate that the aforementioned paragraph could be conisdered controversial, however I was unaware that "Tweets" could not be used as the sole reference within articles, particularly when the Tweets in question were posted by an account owned by the individual which the page is about. Furthermore, prior to posting the Tweet and editing the article, I had made great efforts to seek the advice of a number of Administrators (see: here and here) about whether the referencing, which I appreciate was somewhat unorthodox, would be accepted. The advice I received however was rather unclear on the matter and as such I was unsure as to how to proceed. Looking back, I recognise that I should not have posted the paragraph in question, however at the time I felt that any edit that I would potentially make could easily be reverted and therefore for this reason I decided to post the paragraph in question. Admittedly I had neglected to consult the relevant page referenced by Softlavender prior to posting the edit to the page, which I recognise was lax of me. It certainly was not my intention to cause any offence or problems, and had I of known that posting this would have done I would obviously have not have done so.

There are potentially other reasons why I feel that a block should not be imposed on my person, however I am not prepared to go into these on a public forum. If you wish to discuss this privately, I would be happy to do so.

Thank you for your understanding.

--Zoyetu (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Private evidence in this case would not be applicable. I suggest you present all evidence publicly. --Tarage (talk) 05:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think that Zoyetu's knowledge of our general sourcing standards, especially in regard to BLPs, leaves a lot to be desired. Here are some other examples that I found among their recent edits (I have since reverted):

• Sourcing a minor TV appearance to a user-edited website at both Damon Hill and Graham Hill ([28]; [29]). As with their edits to Peter Levy (presenter), this is related to Jimmy Savile. Insufficient quality of sourcing for BLP purposes and arguably undue weight.
• Using a copyright violation as a source on Patton Brothers (see WP:YOUTUBE).
• Probable original research here (I see no proof that the person discussed in the article and remembered in the source are one and the same, and I seriously question the website's reliability).

They have also demonstrated a clear agenda – apparently motivated by what they perceive to be in the "public interest" – in edits such as [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] (see the edit summary) and [36] (again, see the summary).

This behaviour spans nearly two years. SuperMarioMan–Talk 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) I would like to address the 'contributions' that you have outlined one by one. With regards to the minor television appearances by both Damon Hill and Graham Hill, you suggest that the BBC Genome is a user-edited website, however I would argue that it is a bit more than that. According to the website, it contains the BBC listings information which the BBC printed in Radio Times between 1923 and 2009. See here. Again, regarding the Patton Brothers page, I accept your point about using YouTube as a reference, however I did this as I could not find a proper reference (due to the age of the material) but I wanted to be sure that the information could be included. I can also confirm that the Erik Ramsey listed on that webpage and the one listed on the website are the same individuals (here's another website showing the same individual), however as I have already suggested I feel as though I am being unfairly targetted by users who clearly have a vendetta against me, so I doubt what I say will be considered fairly regardless. --Zoyetu (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the fact that any Internet user can edit the Genome site (see the subheading "Join in" in your link above as well as the "edit" buttons in the link I gave) makes it unreliable for encyclopaedic purposes (as we do not know which information has been fact-checked and which has not). See WP:USERGENERATED. And what makes Tributes.com a reliable source? SuperMarioMan–Talk 15:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Block

Zoyeto had received numerous and repeated warnings on his talkpage (including a final warning [37] which stated "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page") between October 2015 and February 2016 about exactly this behavior [38], and knew exactly what he was doing creating a trumped-up WP:OR/WP:SYNTH BLP-vio cited only to the subject (including an image Zoyetu uploaded of a supposedly deleted tweet -- possibly even faked as tweets can easily be faked). Since Zoyetu appears to have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia's policies, and has repeatedly deliberately flouted them, I suggest a block is the appropriate action here, as the community does not have the manpower to babysit one editor's actions. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Softlavender (talk · contribs) but I must refute your allegations that the paragraph that I had posted was 'trumped-up' and that I had 'possibly faked the tweet'. This is completely untrue and I would not knowingly post untrue information onto a Wikipedia page. The tweet itself is completely valid and was, up until at least May 2014, still present on the user's profile. Also, I find your suggestions that I have 'no intentions of abiding by Wikipedia's policies' and that I have 'deliberately flouted' them with little regard for the website also to be potentially libellous. I have created and edited many articles since February 2016 that I feel have benefited the website as a whole. It seems to me that you have a 'bee in your bonnet' with regards to my activities on Wikipedia, and I feel as though I am being unfairly targetted by yourself on the website for what I would suggest was a mistake. I have already apologised for any offence caused by the posting of the paragraph on the aforementioned page, and I am unsure as to what else I can do. I would suggest that a complete block is rather harsh for what has occurrred, especially as the warning in question was over a year and a half ago. --Zoyetu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's too late for these blythe apologies, Zoyetu; you had been warned far more than was lenient already on your talk page [39], [40], [41], [42], and were aware that breaching BLP policies again would result in a block and/or topic ban. As SuperMarioMan notes in his OP, "They have ... demonstrated a clear agenda" and "This behaviour spans nearly two years." Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The irony overload of Zoyetu's accusation of libel is near-fatal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Topic ban from BLPs

Zoyeto's final warning from SuperMarioMan in February 2016 also entailed this sanction if he persisted in his poorly sourced BLP-vios: [43]. And yet he persisted, posting that trumped-up self-cited BLP-violating nonsense on Peter Levy just this month: [44]. (There's also no telling how many other articles he has done this to between February 2016 and now.) So it's time to enact the sanction clearly indicated in the final warning, to prevent further BLP-vios. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that I am being unfairly targetted with regards to a single edit that I had made on the aforementioned page. You state that 'there's also no telling how many other articles he (you suggest that I am male) has done this to', however clearly there are none as I am sure that other Editors and Administrators would have picked up on it. One Administrator who is aware of my edits is Keith D (talk · contribs) (he is currently away until the 3 September 2017) and I am sure he can vouch for them since February 2016. --Zoyetu (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's too late for these blythe apologies, Zoyetu; you had been warned far more than was lenient already on your talk page [45], [46], [47], [48], and were aware that breaching BLP policies again would result in a block and/or topic ban. As SuperMarioMan notes in his OP, "They have ... demonstrated a clear agenda" and "This behaviour spans nearly two years." Softlavender (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You both Softlavender (talk · contribs) SuperMarioMan (talk · contribs) talk about an 'agenda' but fail to outline what this agenda is. Please could you clarify this for me, thank you. --Zoyetu (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The "agenda" is you seeming to cast yourself as a moral judge in comments like this, which leads you to make biased, innuendo-driven article edits like this and this. Reading through the Levy diff I'm staggered that you considered it a constructive addition to the article. What point were you trying to make? SuperMarioMan–Talk 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note: Here is the material Zoyetu added to the Peter Levy article, clearly designed to incriminate Levy by closely associating him with notorious longterm pedophile Jimmy Savile:

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

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

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

References

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

• Support indefinite topic ban. Zoyetu's recent actions, combined with their statements here, demonstrate some very large gaps in their policy knowledge and suggest to me that they need to stay well clear of this area. SuperMarioMan–Talk 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll add that I do think blocking would be excessive, as Zoyetu does appear to have edited constructively in other places. It's their contributions to BLPs that are a cause for concern. SuperMarioMan–Talk 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support User seems unable to abide by BLP or understand it. I'm not sure which is worse. --Tarage (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic-ban per Softlavender and SuperMarioMan. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 20:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comment: Note that Zoyetu deleted the quoted material above four minutes after I posted it: [49]. Clearly this is both an admission of guilt and yet another indication that this user is WP:NOTHERE and at this point is merely trolling. Softlavender (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• The editor is still putting in BLP-vios into articles: This claim just added that the subject was fired from The Simpsons "with suggestions that the reasons behind the decision were largely financial" [50] is not supported by the citations and also does not mention the stated reason for his dismissal: [51]. The citation also does not substantiate the claim that "His last complete score was for the season finale of Season 28"; in fact, the citation is the wrong citation altogether; the proper citation should be the Variety article which the AV Club citation cites. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC); edited 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Variety article was cited together with the AV Club article, which states: Clausen’s last complete score for the series was for the season finale of Season 28, which aired in May. See here. --Zoyetu (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

No, the AV Club citation you posted most clearly does not state that: [52]. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The quotation was cited in the Variety article, which I had cited alongside the AV Club article. --Zoyetu (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

You are correct; my oversight and so stricken. My other points stand. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Need administrative review/closure here

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

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.

WP:POINT

• Zoyetu was clearly warned not to edit BLPs, yet they have already violated their topic ban and are now playing games. Would an uninvolved administrator please issue a block? SuperMarioMan–Talk 22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked 48 hours. GAB^gab 22:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikigirl97 and “Jewish Gotcha BS"

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.

---

• Wikigirl97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Richard_B_Spencer, Wikigirl97 has been proposing that Charlottesville leader Richard Spencer not be described as a white supremacist, because "“his just seems like a personal attack on his character, with a gotcha topic that doesn't belong in the intro or article at all.”" In furtherance of this discussion, at User_talk:Edaham, they write [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edaham&diff=799003580&oldid=798844417]]

what's a "scanctions"? also it just seems out of place even if there is a source for it, wtf is refusing to reject something anyways? sounds like some jewish gotcha bs to me that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

This is difficult to construe as a typo or a poor choice of words. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

They also call refusing to denounce Hitler is "a trap". Uh... No, he's had plenty of opportunity to say that Hitler was wrong, Hitler was evil, etc. It's really not that hard, it just requires minimal awareness of western history and not being evil. One doesn't even have to be a good person to denounce Hitler. I've not looked into other areas WikiGirl97 has edited, but the Spencer stuff raises WP:CIR concerns.

At a minimum, a topic ban is necessary. I'm foreseeing that we'd need to ban her from pages relating to white supremacism, as well as Jews and Judaism. Someone who would think that denouncing Hitler is "a trap" and "jewish gotcha bs" can't be trusted to edit those topics. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support said topic-ban. Interestingly, this user's other contributions do not appear to be problematic (at least from a glance). GAB^gab 15:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• That kind of antisemitism is worthy of an immediate block, as far as I'm concerned, but some water has already gone under the bridge. Of course, if User:Wikigirl97 actually explains what they meant by that ridiculous phrase, they might get that block after all. I don't know if a topic ban is worth it, all that paperwork and stuff--if y'all want to go for it, you have my blessing. I'd just say, hey, Wikigirl, no more of this crap please or you will be blocked for a combination of POV pushing, racist commentary, and incompetence, in any ratio you like. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Had they not contributed elsewhere, I would have just NOTHERE'd them. While I'm all for punching Nazis, as far as we know this is a couple of mistakes (even if incredibly stupid ones) that, while raising WP:CIR concerns about editing in the areas I've highlighted, show that the user needs to be educated instead of chased off to Stormfront. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What sort of a mistake is it, to say that "[This] sounds like some Jewish BS?" And why, "DrMies", has "some water gone under the bridge" when the remark was reported within a few hours of its being made? Must overt anti-Semitism be reported within minutes lest it become stale? May all Wikipedians freely disparage all religious and ethnic categories, or is this honor reserved for Jews? MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• "MarkBernstein" please piss against another wall. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• So first I was thinking an AE topic ban for BLP's, except no one has given the templated warning that has to come first, so I'd get in trouble for doing it without the template warning first. I'd similarly get in trouble for unilaterally imposing a non-AE topic ban, because WP is stupid that way. Rather than voting here over a 48 hour period to get the community's blessing on a simple topic ban, I'm thinking an indef block for bigoted POV pushing, which I am allowed to do unilaterally, followed by a potential unblock with a BLP topic ban as a condition of an unblock. Or, if they try to justify "jewish gotcha bs" in their unblock request, we just don't unblock. A short class in Hoop-Jumping 101, Fall 2017. Any objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I fully support this. The comment about "jewish gotcha bs" to me is a red flag. While I believe in the right to free speech and speaking freely, there ARE repercussions for the things you say. This is the way to get Wikigirl's attention to let her know this is NOT tolerated here, period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. My considerations were like Ian.Thomson's, but your proposal is more direct and probably more helpful. I have a feeling, though, that we won't hear from this editor either way. Thanks Floq, Thanks Rick. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Go for it. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Glad this got reported. Saw it last night and folks were asking the user to explain themself. I support Floq's suggestion. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Was at job interview or would've responded sooner): Well, when you put it that way, sure. Some sort of super-admin that would do unilateral DS stuff outside of AE areas would be useful for situations like this. Not that I should be one (hell, I don't know why y'all gave me a mop half the time). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 5 September 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 threatens to hack into 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.

---

A hacked sock.

EEng

A hackysack

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

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Ehhhhwaaaaaaahblehhhh that nonsense again. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 5 September 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 attack by disruptive editor 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.

---

User Kautilya3 who has a history of abusing multiple accounts, is under ethnicity claims restrictions, shows WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and has been warned twice[53] [54] for edit warring has made a personal attack against @解放的高加索:. Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks on anyone, even if they are banned/blocked users. 101.56.218.38 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The majority of the diffs you provided are from 2014. Do you have anything recent that needs to be addressed?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously. The one diff that's recent, the so-called personal attack, is mild comment about "people who live in glass houses". It makes me wonder who this IP editor is and why they have such a keen interest in taking up a blocked editor's battles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP is the blocked editor's second cousin, three times removed, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

Suspicious activity on Bob Vila article

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

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

• I'm lazy, so pinging Ivanvector (thanks in advance). GAB^gab 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: it's 100% ConsumersDistributingonline - all gibberish accounts created since the last round of blocks making rapid, poorly referenced edits to retailers and related topics, obviously seeking autoconfirmation so they can go back to messing with the semiprotected articles they've likely been paid to edit. Sleeper checks aren't very useful with this case, just block away. I'm travelling until midday tomorrow (ADT) and can't efficiently swing the block hammer from here, but please feel free. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ivanvector, you said ADT (daylight time) but you linked Atlantic Standard Time. People always get standard time and daylight time mixed up and it MAKES ME LOSE MY TEMPER! EEng 02:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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.

• EEng: Don't get mad, it's just DOP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Clear legal threat by 108.49.83.212

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

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

Commons:File:Mumbai Rail Map

• File:Mumbai Rail Map - English.jpg
• File:Mumbai Rail Map - Hindi.jpg
• File:Mumbai Rail Map - Marathi.jpg

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

This is a Commons issue as all files and deletions are there, admins here can't view that. You'll have to post at Commons:COM:ANU or hope for someone like Nyttend who is an admin here and there to take a look at it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Jaikishanpatel was the Commons uploader for all three of them. They were unquestionably copyvios; the files are marked "© 2015 Industrial Design Centre IIT Bombay". Nyttend (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Taeyebar

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.

---

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

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

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

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

ANi does a very poor job of protecting users from WP:STALKING. This report strongly supports the assertion that stalking is occuring [55] I'd like an explaination from User:Taeyebar for this editing pattern. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Taeyebar doesn't seem to do much except engage in genre warring and wikihounding. Or am I missing something? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed One Way Interaction Ban

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

• Support as proposer. Legacypac (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support An explanation from Taeyebar isn't necessary. The evidence is clear cut that their behavior is disruptive and intentionally so. A I-ban is the least of the corrections we could take.--v/r - TP 22:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support The interaction report is very damning. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked, and also support I-ban. After studying Tayebar's conduct in this, I don't think an I-ban alone is sufficient. The edits + edit summaries on June 22 2017 that Gothicfilm points to are outrageous, and this strong warning by an another editor the next day doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. And it's been going on for years! I have blocked them for a month for persistent disruptive editing which interferes with another editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia. I'll support a one-way I-ban also — an indefinite I-ban, of course — though I don't have much faith in I-bans in general: they tend to cause a lot of timewasting borderline problems, especially if the editors involved edit in the same area. Bishonen | talk 16:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC).
• Support I-ban and current block. The adding of unsourced genres is bad enough but T's declaration that they will stalk GF's edits flies in the face of what Wikipedia is all about. MarnetteD|Talk 16:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I was thinking more along the lines of an indefinite block, but a month-long block and interaction ban are OK, I guess. No more warnings, though – the next time Taeyebar reverts Gothicfilm, he should be indefinitely blocked for harassment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a last chance to do right. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Nobody should have to put up with this level of harrassment. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block, but failing that, support iban. I'm surprised no-one's mentioned WP:NOTHERE or WP:SPA yet. This user's reverting pattern and general behaviour is tendentious and pointy. Linguist^unEins^uno 20:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, the discussion has focused on the harrassment to the detriment of the other behavioral problems but that said it allows us to take decisive action on the most immediate issue. It will also serve as a warning to Taeyebar that he must change his ways. I am a big believer in sanctions before indefinite blocks anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Indef one-way IBan to be in place when editor comes off their 1 month block. Next step should be indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Indef I-ban and current block. If that isn't sufficient enough, then the next step should be indef block. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 20:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef 1-way-IBAN - I don't favour 1-way-IBANs under normal circumstances but this level of harrassment needs to be dealt with immediately. I agree with others to leave the current block in place, though I have no opinion on any infraction escalation. I think that should be dealt with upon infraction when it can be reviewed standalone and separate from this discussion. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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 behaviour of Nfitz

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.

---

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

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

• The "edited" version was simply, as I clearly stated, the part of the conversation with the admin, without the unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwanted contributions from the peanut gallery. I'm not sure why anyone needs to looking at my seldom-edited user page to even notice such an edit. Anyone can go look at the full conversation; I fully admitted that it was edited; I stated clearly what was cut out. And I left every time-stamp intact, that someone can very quickly click on my contributions, and see the full discussion; not that I ever expect anyone to see something that I have put on my own user page, so I can remember it 6 months or a year from now. I fail to see why this is coming to ANI ... again ... without any attempt to communicate with me first. Sitush was only extremely peripherally involved with the entire discussion (which was never about what Sitush once said ... I can't even remember who said it without his reminder, but simply my failure to understand why that community consensus is that WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and other key parts of WP:5P4 are no longer considered very important. If Sitush had simply posted on my talk page - from which not only are they quite welcome (I've previously noted I'd quite interested to hear their thoughts on caste versus race, an area which they have much knowledge, and I have little), I'd have simply added a link - which I will do now. Please stop dragging people to ANI and try and communicate with them first; this appears to have become a habit of yours. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Nfitz's extended commentaries are indistinguishable from trolling. A quick scan of User talk:Nfitz#July 2017 and the immediately following User talk:Nfitz#August 2017 shows a gnawing compulsion to continue digging without any expectation of a benefit to the encyclopedia. People are allowed to disagree and there is no requirement that someone explain issues over and over and over. At this ANI archive, Sitush complained about a personal attack from someone unrelated to this discussion. At an AfD, that person clearly implied that Sitush's comments were motivated by antisemitism. The accusation was blatant although more subtle than a direct attack. The issue of the accusation is not relevant here, but its background is important because Sitush responded with one expletive to the accusation, and a lot of subsequent navel-gazing concerned whether implying someone is an antisemite is a worse CIVIL violation than using a bad word. Nfitz's first comment was diff at ANI with a cheery edit summary that started "perhaps for once, someone got the better of you!". That is, the person who accused Sitush of antisemitism had got the better of Sitush and had won the argument with their brilliant accusation of antisemitism. For some reason, Nfitz pursued the discussion at User talk:Johnuniq#ANI sit and then at User talk:Bishonen#Proofing and the F word. After ten days of back-and-forth, Bishonen closed the section, but Nfitz continued with diff. That last comment is a classic although childish debating tactic to say that Bishonen is failing to engage with Nfitz's good-faith desire to understand why everyone else is wrong. Nfitz then recorded the discussion at permalink where they essentially complain that Bishonen is at fault ("Attempt to engage in dialogue with neutral admin"). Can anyone point to positive contributions from Nfitz? At some point, their inability to drop the stick has to be confronted and it is unclear whether their presence at Wikipedia is useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Coming to an Admin's page, who was generally uninvolved in the discussion, out of respect, and politely asking some simple questions to gain better understand, and avoid pitfalls, is not only not trolling, but it is the recommended procedure first step here to deal with differences of opinion. Bishonen DIDN'T close the section, a third-party did; and I never reopened it (other than fix a typo). The "last comment" was simply an apology for having intruded - anything else you detect was perhaps bafflement on why what to me looks like a simple polite exchange, has created any animosity with me (rather than the peanut gallery). Everything else you say here is some bizarre attempt to connect the dots, and make 2+2 = 5. No, I never thought that other editor was was suggesting that Sitush was antisemitic, nor was accusing Sitush of being antisemitic - perhaps I'm once again guilty of AGF, seeing the glass as half-full, and always assuming the best of people. But a simple disagreement on an obscure comment weeks ago, is not reason to continue this. What have I done? Well, most recently, I've been working on the very page that started the whole thing, quietly adding the sources that were never there to demonstrate that this was not just a small town newspaper, but showing extensive state-wide coverage over a significant period of time. No one else seemed to give that article any love once the AFD drama was over (I'm not done yet, I was going to try and research from a non-Louisiana perspective still). I continue my never-ending task to properly research User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team to determine if it is notable or not (I've been waiting weeks for library access, which I just received notification of yesterday), I've looking at Wikidata and how we might be able to use that data to create references using templates like "Cite Q" [56], and continue, as I have for over a decade, to work on certain local topics, et même éditer un peu dans l'autre langue. My time is very limited, I'm never going to spend hours every day working on the project. I can easily spend days or weeks without even appearing. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Johnuniq's summation above reflects my experiences with Nfitz on this noticeboard: seemingly automatic contrarianism, an apparent inability or unwillingness to comprehend the arguments of others, repetition of the same points ad nauseum (only going deeper and deeper into a hole), and a complete inability to drop the stick.
  I have not looked into Nfitz's substantive editing, but it would have to be pretty darn good to balance out their commentary and produce a net positive. What, I wonder, is Nfitz's purpose in being here, and -- assuming they have positive content edits -- would a topic ban from Wikipedia space (which takes up over a third of their edits) [57] encourage them to participate more in actually improving the encyclopedia instead of treating the project like a glorified debating society? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I really have little interest in responding to someone whose modus operandi is to get under someone's skin, and as the other person comes to your talk page, and points out your error, to "ban them" from ever appearing on your talk page, or pinging them. I've never seen anyone work so hard to only surround themselves by yes men. You've "banned" more people than I expect you can track of - so many you had to write a template to make it quicker to do so. BTW, yes a lot of my edits are in WP space - I've been contributing significantly to AFD, particularly in the Football area, for years. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Sorry, Fortuna|, that didn't work, you apparently need to put it differently — I don't think you meant X's tools is Nfitz's most edited page. Bishonen | talk 09:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

D'oh! -yes, of course. — fortunavelut luna 09:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

How does this work. All I get is wt::getUserInfo is not a valid wiki. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And the reason is, is that the link above is broken. Above it says https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Nfitz&project=enwik&_sm_au_=isVm7ls60l6gtHVV when it should say https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Nfitz&project=enwiki&_sm_au_=isVm7ls60l6gtHVV - thanks everyone! Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And yet you've edits here than I do. You mean, you are going to violate WP:AGF and make an unfounded speculation. Unlike some, I don't adopt an article, and guard it from any changes with my life. And I respond to most queries on my talk page, on the other persons talk page. So it's no real surprise that a page like this has got the most edits. Even though I can go years without commenting here at all. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm simply going to take the advice others have given me, and withdraw further from this conversation - and try not even to read it; though I'll return if an admin feels it necessary for me to do so, and summons me on my talk page. Or if I fail to ignore and there's a particularly egregious mistruth or exaggeration. Personally, if you'd all simply do what I do, and AGF about what a person does, and their actions, we wouldn't be here. Nfitz (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Seriously, please don't ping me; I don't really want to read this. Twice in four minutes? Come on ... Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The tale of Ken
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Nfitz: Who's <redacted>? — fortunavelut luna 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Just one of Ken's various sock-puppets, from before they turned over a new leaf. Presumably named from the famous and obvious <redacted> ... I hope at least ... been a while. But really, I just asked not to be brought back here; couldn't you ask this on my talk page? No ... don't answer. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Ken doesn't have "various sock puppets", Ken's had three accounts, none of which edited at the same time. Ken didn't realize at the time (poor, stupid, naive Ken) that Ken should have linked Ken's new account to Ken's old one, but Ken was attempting to get away from harassment at a time when en.Wiki was a lot less sensitive to that problem then it is now (when the pendulum has swung too far the other way). Ken didn't attempt to hide who Ken was by changing Ken's editing style or the subjects Ken edited, so, of course, when one of the harassers filed an SPI, Ken was speared like a fish in a barrel. (Ironically, the editor who filed the SPI was part of a very large sockfarm that had taken umbrage because Ken was attempting to get something done about them. They later continued their harassment of Ken off-Wiki.) Ken brought the matter of Ken's block to AN/I, where the community discussed it, and decided that Ken hadn't really done anything so very wrong, and allowed Ken to continue editing, and a thankful Ken has continued to do so ever since. Ken's opponents often bring this up as if it were the Jesus bolt that was going to bring Ken tumbling down, but Ken actually laid the whole thing out in User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory, and Ken's still around. Ken (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• OMG this makes me so tired. I'll make this comment and no more. After Nfitz has been recently allowed back from an indefinite block, you'd think we wouldn't get all this nagging and poking and these potshots from them. I agree with Sitush that the way Nfitz has posted a steeply abbreviated thread from my talkpage on their own userpage doesn't suggest they're here for any good. Notice (now that Sitush has supplied a link) especially that the original thread contained eight posts by Nfitz, which the shortened version on his userpage has reduced to three. That reduction makes my tired final comment, "Nfitz, I really want you to go away and leave me alone", look unexpected and impatient. A minor point is that that comment of mine riffed on this one by MjolnirPants — Nfitz unmoored it by removing User:MjolnirPants as representing "the peanut gallery". AFAICS, what Mjolnir had posted was a kind-hearted attempt to answer the question Nfitz has asked so many times, and which I too had tried to answer without getting through. I thought Mjolnir's was the best attempt so far, and that perhaps light would dawn on Nfitz after reading it. Apparently not. I try to avoid referring to WP:CIR issues wrt individuals, but if the way Nfitz carries on lately isn't a CIR issue, I have to call it trolling. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC).

• You are tired. I not four minutes ago, asked to be left out of the discussion, and you couldn't wait four minutes to ping me back? This has absolutely nothing to do with the block, which not only didn't involve ANY of the people involved here, had NOTHING to do with WP:CIVIL and was entirely about my misinterpreting something in WP:BLP which I admitted fully, apologized profusely, and haven't repeated - absolutely shame on you for approaching this with that prejudice! I have linked the full discussion on my page, as I said I would do above. You completely ignore my comments above, where I noted that I clearly stated that I had edited them, and what I had left out. My questions to you were simple, and in good faith, based on your admin comments earlier. You then chose to ignore this simple question for over 6 days. When I tried to get a bit more clarification (because I still honestly don't understand why you and the rest of the community thinks it's alright to call people fuckwits) you tossed WP:ADMINACCT out the window. Instead of calling you on that abdication of responsibility, I very politely apologized, and moved on. And for that, the now disappointed peanut gallery, who also thinks it okay to call people fuckwits, drags me and you here, to have a rematch. There were not eight comments to you. There were three; anything else was responding to unnecessary comments from the peanut gallery - which for some bizarre reason you have no problems with, despite them only trying to stir up shit. The first, which was very respectful and polite. A polite reminder 6 days later, as you had not replied at all. And then after your reply I politely responded. And again you fail to reply - and I have actually given up on you ever replying and left - when 5 days later, you suddenly pop back with a bizzare response that you don't want to discuss it. So I simply apologized and moved on. Not being able to leave the issue alone, you suddenly discover timeliness and within 3 hours you blank my apology, pretend I've posted inside a closed thread, ban me from your talk page, and are rude. And now you've the gall to come here, ping me not 4 minutes after I asked to be left out of it, and make out like I'm trolling or have a CIR issue, despite YOUR inability to understand WP:CIVIL, WP:ETIQUETTE, and WP:ADMINACCT. Sorry, I'm no longer being polite ... but you can't both try and avoid the discussion, and then run here as fast as you can to join the peanut gallery in sticking an extra knife in the back. Okay, really done now. You asked to be left alone. Then kindly leave me alone, and not ignore what I wrote only 4 minutes before you pinged me. I'm no longer interested in your unending quest to be rude when only approached with kindness, politeness, and civility. Nfitz (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Propose block of Nfitz per the nominator's original complaint, which has been nothing if not copperfastened by continuing WP:STICK, WP:IDHT and a healthy dose of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Not only have they just re-WP:OUTed BeyondMyKen (or at least deliberately pushed the envelope on whether they could do so), but, having claimed they are withdrawing from the thread, they return with a wall of text accusing Bishonen of all sorts of calumnies. Someone mentioned trolling above- this behaviour has, I agree gone from tendentious to trolling. — fortunavelut luna 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I withdrew until an Admin pinged me. There's no battleground, the debate was over, and Sitush continues to stick straws in the ant-nest. I'll happily never mention again. Perhaps you can tell me why it's okay to call another editor a fuckwit, simply because you disagree with them? And again I've reappeared, because of the "outing Ken" comment. How can I re-out Ken. I've no idea they was outed, let alone in. They identify their previous accounts and that they was blocked for sock puppetting on their own user page User:Beyond My Ken/My backstory. The public sockpuppet investigation is listed at <redacted per WP:OUTING>. And the name in the <redacted> song I mentioned above is listed in there as one of their socks. I'm not sure how idly mentioning his sock puppetry that he documents himself, and we publicly document to the world, is outing him. And since when was being a former sockpuppet a secret? Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support block Who cares if it is good-faith questioning or trolling? The effect is that other editors are drowned in Nfitz's snide commentary that is totally unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. Saving a false account of a discussion (see "edited version" in the OP) is bad enough, but smearing Bishonen with fake mentions of WP:ADMINACCT is unacceptable—the link states the obvious, namely that admins are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, yet Bishonen is absent from Nfitz's block log and has posted a single message at Nfitz's talk. I don't know the OUTING background but clearly Nfitz's references to BMK above are an attack. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hang on. WP:ADMINACCT is not just about tools. That's the first sentence of the first paragraph. Keep reading, onto the next line where it says Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. I don't think 6 days to reply to a simple, polite, civil, question is prompt, when the editor has been very active. And even then, I didn't raise it, until they came here, and started twisting the truth. And hang on, people unnecessarily discussing my background and calling people fuckwits isn't a personal attack, but very subtle mention that no one else would probably even get of someone else's past is an attack? Seems to be, if you don't agree with someone, and want to get rid of them, anything they say is an attack, and you can call them a fuckwit as much as you want, but it's never an attack. The hypocrisy here is stunning. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Nfitz: Could you please either provide a diff for someone calling someone a fuckwit or strike the claim? I thought the controversy was over telling someone to "fuck off". GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I did, somewhere recently. That's in part why I have more or less stopped editing - the meds are messing me up. - Sitush (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• My diff was caught in an edit conflict. I previously diffed several comments the last time Sitush dragged me to ANI. On that note though, I won't diff the vulgarity in question. Sorry to hear Sitush ... I've been there. Heck, with the insomnia I have currently, meds are still playing with me - but a bit differently. On that note, a couple of quick real edits, I've been meaning to do for a while, and off to bed. Nfitz (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• And after that act of kindness, they double down. @GoldenRing: Here's a recent diff. I previously diffed several similar the last time they dragged me to ANI. I focused on the fuck off because I felt it was worse (and was more recent). But similar comments aren't unusual such as this. But as I've stated before Sitush is a good editor ... however they have a battleground attitude that crosses over to the point that they can't accept even minor criticism. Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support So, despite even this thread being in part about posting in a closed talk page thread, Nfitz not only posted unnecessarily to my talk page but attempted to continue that via edit summary after I reverted them & asked them to go away. And their edit summary here bears no relation to the post and appears to be some sort of snide commentary in itself. This sort of behaviour has been going on for some time now, not merely in relation to the anti-semitism issue. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see how asking you to simply discuss something with me first, rather than going to ANI is unnecessary. Also you DIDN'T ask me to go away. The second edit was simply fixing the Reflist you damaged when you reverted me; it was only after that you asked me to go away. And I did. What's wrong with the edit summary? My position is that that people need to be WP:CIVIL and you call that tendentious? In what way is asking people to be civil, being tendentious? How did being civil, somehow become controversial? Nfitz (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• ^^ QED ^^ - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Well I apologize then that I don't think it's okay to call people fuckwits or fuck offs or whatever you want to call people using the word fuck. Really going this time. Nfitz (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block The exchange on Bishonen's talk page (and the subsequent "archiving" of an edited version) is the epitome of tendentiousness. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, good grief, I simply put it there, to read and understand the discussion between myself and Bishonen, without the peanut gallery comments, because otherwise, even I was having a hard time following it. It was never for public eyes, I kept it off my talk page (well I tried) just so no one would make a fuss, and I've now removed it. I didn't change a word of text, nor a date stamp of the comments between us. That's not the epitome of anything other than someone trying to understand what the heck happened. I have no idea why anyone ever even came across it - that page has gone many years with nary an edit. Tendentious behaviour would require me to put it somewhere prominent, not try and hide it away somewhere. Tendentious behaviour wouldn't also have waited weeks to get 2 responses, and would have pointed out the clear WP:ADMINACCT fail, rather than simply turning a blind eye for it, and graciously apologizing. What does a block accomplish here? Whatever issue there is, has been dealt with. I've never been accused of such a thing in the dozen or so years I've been here, despite having more than one disagreement during that time, so I'm hardly a danger to re-offend on this issue anytime soon. Though I still don't understand Bishonen's position that it's perfectly fine to call people names, like fuck off or fuckwit. Perhaps if someone would explain that to me, clearly and simply (pretend I'm a fuckwit), this would all go away. Nfitz (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

• Oppose block. I see unfortunately heated exchanges, and I don't see any one individual as being the 100% baddie here. There have been some unfortunate overreactions (to some unacceptable insults, certainly), but I'd stop short of labeling anything as deliberate trolling. I don't see how any blocks now would be preventative, and I recommend chilling, cooling and generally relaxing all round - if everyone can just put this behind them and move on, wouldn't that be lovely? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, and just a suggestion for anyone who really wants to help defuse all this - take the high ground and be the first person to stop talking about it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• The high ground has been tried but still Nfitz persisted, eg: the closed thread on Bish's talk page mentioned in the original post. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Doesn't mean *you* (meaning any other individual involved) can't just stop and walk away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose block. At least for now. I agree with Boing! said Zebedee, I don't see anyone being particularly at fault here. A block here would unlikely be helpful and blows this out of proportion unnecessarily. May I have some time to ask Nfitz on his talk page to drop the discussions that are being perceived as tendentious? If that fails, then perhaps an editing restriction can be implemented. Alex Shih^Talk 14:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  WP:Civility is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow".  Unscintillating (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let cooler heads prevail. Nfitz is already on thin ice with the recent indef block and they know it. They are trying to withdraw from the conversation at this point. However, if something borderline tendentious happens again this should be considered - good faith can't be assumed every time. Garchy (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• They haven't withdrawn from it in three weeks, despite numerous explanations and requests to do so. And they were still in the same vein here and elsewhere only a few hours ago. Why will it be any different this time? A block until they demonstrate an understanding seems entirely preventative to me. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You could be completely correct - but I view a block here as punitive, not preventative. Not blocking in this particular incident would not prevent a block in the future, if an issue arises again. Based on their behavior once this came to ANI I don't see a block being preventative. Garchy (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, over 2 weeks - I can't even count now. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support wikispace topic ban if an indef block is not feasible. As someone who has actually come to Nfitz defense on some things they said which could very easily be construed as a BLPVIO, only to be personally attacked for not defending everything they say, my first impression of this editor has been formed, baked and sealed; and it is not good. It seems to me that 12 years of editing aught to be enough to teach someone what a BLP vio is, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems that 12 years of editing should be enough to teach an editor when to drop the stick, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. It seems to me that 12 years of editing would be enough to teach an editor how assuming good faith is something that only needs to be done when you really don't want to do it, but apparently not in Nfitz's case. Nfitz has gotten plenty of slack from the admins so far, and it seems to me that it's about time that slack ran out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support close. Nfitz has removed the content from their user page, and Wikipedia:Not Colosseum. NE Ent 16:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not Colosseum is a really good link. BMK brought up that this page is Niftz's most edited page. I think that an editor who's more concerned with the drama than with the encyclopedia is one who might benefit from the topic ban I mentioned. Also, it's generally considered inappropriate to close a thread which is soliciting community input after less than 14 hours. I understand the desire to shut down drama machines, but sometimes letting a smaller drama machine run will save us from dealing with a larger one in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• This was about tendentious behaviour, of which the posting on their user page was just one example. Even in removing it, their edit summary shows no understanding of why. As in past instances, including the BLP issue others have referred to, they have some sort of misunderstanding of AGF as a panacea. It isn't (eg: WP:PACT), and it definitely isn't when it is applied only to suit one's own position. Anyway, that's me done here - due for another doping. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - This appears to be "OUT Beyond My Ken" week, since an editor who attempted to out me juts a few days ago wound up being blocked. Interestingly, he posted pretty much the same information that Nfitz did here, but, of course, that doesn't make Nfitz's WP:OUTING any more acceptable. I have warned Nfitz on his talk page that they violated that policy, and that a repeat on his part will be brought to admin attention. In the meantime, I have redacted the information, and asked it to be oversighted, as it was in the previous instance.
  Nfitz make some interesting remarks about me. First he comments about my modus operandi which, as is often the case with Nfitz, he gets totally wrong. My modus operandi is to improve the encyclopedia in any way possible, which is why 73.05% of my edits are to Mainspace, [58] whereas only 34.2% of Nfitz's edits are to Mainspace [59]. If I get into a disagreement with another editor, it gets taken to the article talk page to straighten out. If the other editor insists on taking it to my user talk page, and won't cease when I ask them to, then, yes, absolutely, I throw them off my page ignominiously, on their backside, just as I would throw out of my house someone barking at me in my living room with a bullhorn. As I remarked to one editor, I have to engage with them on the article talk page, and I'm happy to do so, but there is no obligation that I keep my user talk page open to bores, cranks, idiots and assholes. I might even tell one to "Fuck off" if the circumstances were appropriate.
  So, it would certainly be understandable if, given his attacks on me, if I were to !vote for an indef block for Nfitz, but I'm not going to do that. I'm am going to support the option I mentioned above, before he decided to violate policy and outed me. Beyond My Ken (talk)

My apologies Ken. I never saw the other discussion. If I had, I would never have been stupid enough to mention the same in the middle of a discussion to block me. I didn't mention anything Ken has already mentioned himself elsewhere, and I thought was common knowledge for obvious reasons that I can't discuss. I'm strongly in favour and support the outing policy, and will never mention it again, and work to make sure others don't as well - no matter which way Ken votes. Nfitz (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• (see below)Support indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - However, some kind of sanction against Nfitz is required, given his egregious record of behavior, so if the consensus is for a block, that would be my second choice, and this should be taken as support for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Due to some new information which has come to my attention via e-mail, which I am unfortunately not at liberty to share, I am now convinced that Nfitz is here on Wikipedia for all the wrong reasons, and that he really has a negligible interest in improving the encyclopedia. Instead, what we see of his behavior at the noticeboards is actually his primary purpose here, as he puts much more energy into doing opposition research than he does to doing anything remotely productive. Give this, I now Support indef block, but if there is no consensus for that, then I endorse the alternative of an indef topic ban from Wikipedia space. This is essentially the reverse of my previous !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ken is referring to some diffs I sent him, in a show of good faith, because I was concerned that he was unaware of unrevdeled information, that I thought he'd want to have revdeled. The time involved to "research" this was minimal. Mostly simply clicking on some links six months ago after this guy I'd never heard lands on my talk page unbidden and insults me, because I was nice to someone at ANI. I actually don't have an enemy or opposition list. I—just as every editor should—approach each edit from a neutral view. Ken does a lot of fine work here, and I have no reason to have any prejudice against him - well at least not months later. Later on - months later, I quite inadvertently tripped over something else I figured he didn't know about. I actually spend a fair bit of time simply reading Wikipedia (the mainspace, not the wikispace), when I tripped over something else; yes when I found it, I looked around for about 5 minutes to see what else was visible. And after this thread started, and being accused of revealing stuff that I didn't know was a secret I did go back and checked what I knew - and ran a slight intrusive search and noticed something in WP space that should be revdeled. Honestly, writing the email last night documenting all this with diffs and links took far longer than the 5 minutes here or there. I hate being here, as a defendant; and I stopped being here here much as uninvolved a while ago, as requested; my first ever attempt in 12-years in private to transparently put together a possible block of text for future dispute resolution is what landed me here - if you've not noticed, I'm actually not particularly good or practised at this kind of battleground type stuff - and unfortunately tend to solve a problem by reading the policy and guidance, and following it - only to discover that only gets your in further trouble. I love doing research - which you can probably tell from some of my mainspace edits. Yes, the hour last night could have been better spent (sleeping actually), but I felt I owed it to you that you knew what I'd seen; almost all of it was before I even knew there was something in all that was even outable. Ken, when you calm down, can you reread what I wrote, pretending that I'm simply a friendly person you vaguely no, who you trust? I think it might look different from another light. If what I sent you had any nefarious purposes, I simply wouldn't heave sent it to you - I'm just not operating on that, or any level; I figured I knew something that you didn't seem to, and would want to know, so I feel morally and ethically obliged to share it with you - even if you seem to hate me. Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Y'know, when one finds someone going through the contents of one's garbage can, one is generally not inclined to take seriously their claim that they were only doing it so they could look at all your bills in order to help you save money. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly where you live you don't have to keep your garbage cans on city property! :) Seriously though, I wasn't looking in a garbage can. Weeks ago I was reading about an old movie actor, for simple enjoyment, and I just tripped over it. The only aspect of that email that may have been looking in a garbage can didn't occur until after this thread started, as I'd got the impression there was more in wiki that could be revdeled. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support either indef topic ban from Wikipedia space, or indef block, or both. This is a serious case of CIR, and needs to be stopped. If Nfitz backs off and assures the community that his disruptiveness is over, I'd settle for the topic ban. But if he doesn't, I think an indef block is in order, with standard offer. Softlavender (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - I have seen Nfitz argue at too many ANI threads that had absolutely nothing to do with him. Obviously, I encourage uninvolved editors to participate at ANI but I would expect they have the competency to create meaningful and sound comments. In no way has Nfitz given me any confidence that he can do that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  I think there is an element here of an attempt to set up Nfitz by editors who support incivility enabling.  Incivility enabling is not policy based and should not be supported.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Editor already !voted, above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Incivility enabling" - nice buzzphrase. (Buzzphrases are always nice because they eliminate the need for actually thinking.) But, still, I'm afraid you're wide of the mark. What's at stake here has nothing to do with "incivility enabling" (and why one editor would want to enable another editor to be uncivil is beyond me; perhaps they're both part of the Worldwide Incivility Conspiracy?), it has to do with tendentious contrarianism, disruptive argumentation, serial I-didn't-hear-that-ism, and behavior virtually indistinguishable from trolling. Those behaviors have been shown by Nfitz on a wide variety of subjects, not just the current "Fuck off" instance; it's simply the most recent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Worldwide Incivility Conspiracy<runs off to start writing WP:WWIC while giggling like an maniac.> ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: You already !voted above, please strike your second !vote, or, if you mean to say that as well as opposing a block, you also oppose an indef TBan from Wikipedia space, please make that clear. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef TBan from Wikipedia space – Editor appears to be interested in contributing. But, the walls of text and wikilawyering are an ongoing, unnecessary time-drain. I don’t think it’s quite CIR. More like a basic lack of understanding that every argument or criticism they have has already been discussed ad nauseam. There is a time and place for such. But, we can’t argue any possible process imperfections in every simple discussion. We have to get along, compromise, drop sticks, and not always get the last word. I’m a big believer in civility. But, sometimes an annoyance needs a few harsh words. Above that, the editor has been given a lot of rope. A block may be warranted. But, I’m glad I wouldn’t have to deal with the appeals. Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support TBan from Wikipedia space – Have had quite a few interactions with this editor at AfD and have been following this thread and the previous block / unblock action. To be involved in something like his previous block and to continue posting the screeds of text and links attempting to discuss the most minor of points almost immediately says to me (on top of my opinion of him from AfD) that, whilst this is an editor who does make positive contributions in the Mainspace, this is also an editor for whom the purpose of enWiki is to engage others in debate around protocol and behavior as much as it is to build an encyclopedia. I'm not really seeing positive contributions outside of the mainspace but what I am seeing is a lot of time being taken up trying to deal with his comments. Unless Nfitz can show clear instances of significant input in the Wikipedia space that have driven positive outcomes for the community as a whole, I think he should be restricted to mainspace editing. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef TBan - based on the responses, I have zero confidence the behavior will change. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Question Is there any record of the almost a third of this user's edits in the Wikipedia space being productive? --John (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

What are you looking at; I've never really looked at these tools? I asked above about the broken link that was giving stats, and no one replied. All I see here are 0s, blocks of blanks space, An unpopulated graph, and my last 30 days of edits on various projects (which seems incomplete, I was in thwiki earlier today ... also I don't think I've edited Wikinews in years, let alone the last 30 days). Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a shame, it's a really useful analysis tool. Try reloading it. Meantime I glean from it that only 34.3% of your edits have been to articles, 31.2% to Wikipedia space, and 19.8% to user talk. So you make five discussion edits for every three article improvement edits. I look for a better ratio than that. Your most edited page ever? This one, with 252 of your 9,523 edits here. That's a lot. Do you have an explanation? --John (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I have to click on the enwiki ... and then comparing to the link above that I've been asking for help using for two days, with no response ... it's because it was broken all along.

All the Wikipedia space? 31.2%. Is that WP: ... if that includes AFD and WP:FOOTY .. then it would be mostly that - well other than this year, but if you take out March and the last 4 weeks. As I've mentioned, I enjoy research. So there's lots of research of AFD submissions, particularly in the Footy area, and trying to find and document notability, and then improve articles.

Yes, that is an interesting tool. And a little scary - kind of feel like the first day I got an Android, and I wandered into Ikea, and it started messaging me about where the best deals were in store ... :) Nfitz (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support either indef topic ban from Wikipedia space - The intense WP:BLUDGEONing is exhausting. Conversations take twice as long when Nfitz is involved, so it's likely he is WP:NOTHERE. I'm just shy of supporting an indef block because I think the topic ban will be sufficient. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Bludgeoning? I've barely made a substantial comment in 2 days, since just after the voting started (other than Ken's outing charges above the voting), and tried to avoid bludgeoning it. Elsewhere, I seem to be in trouble for my responses - which I've not actually made yet to this proposal. Yes, of course I'd follow a topic ban - I've never been one to simply ignore such direction. I don't think it's the right approach though - because I will appeal it as being far to much a blunt instrument than what I think may be needed here. And personally, I don't want to spend the time being involved in that kind of process. I'll put together some points - though at risk of being accused of bludgeoning. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you are kidding. I suppose you aren't so I support indef block as WP:CIR. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

How am I kidding? Look at my WP edit history. The indef proposal was made on Monday at 10:31 AM UTC. My last edit that could be a bludgeon until you commented above about 60 hours later (22:25 PM UTC on Wednesday) was about 3 hours after the proposal at 13:52 PM UTC on Monday, (other than my apology to Ken and reply to his response), a simple question about a broken link (that no one fixed for over 2 days), and a question about how a similar link worked, and minor edits. And between 10:18 AM UTC on Tuesday and 18:06 PM UTC today, there was not an edit, other than some typo fixes. Diff me an edit that shows I could be kidding? @@Nihlus Kryi: Some of the stuff spread here is a nice fiction, but when you dig down in detail, you find that the foundations are very poor. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef TBan from Wikipedia space per Fenix down, who puts it well. I also urge Nfitz to leave Sitush and BMK alone. Nfitz insists that his commentary on these users is well meant, and that may well be, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to have any sense for how unwelcome his approaches to them are. Nfitz, I advised you in quite strong terms as early as March to leave BMK alone, after you had posted various offensive stuff on his page and your own: "Leave BMK alone. I don't only mean don't post on his page, I also mean don't troll him on yours or elsewhere." My post is still on your page. You'd have done yourself a favour if you had listened to me then; please do so now. I hope I don't have to propose formally banning you from talking about BMK and Sitush, and/or from posting on their talkpages, as per WP:IBAN, but if it becomes necessary, I will. Bishonen | talk 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC).

I don't think I've mentioned BMK since your request in March, until he took a run at me the other day, out of nowhere; do you have a diff showing otherwise? (honest question ... I don't pretend to remember everything). He's got to leave me alone too; he is banned from my talk page, BTW, and yet there he is. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did post on your page, to inform you that you had violated WP:OUTING, and that if you did it again I would take it to an admin fo consideration of sanctions. Such a notification takes precedence over what is, after all, an informal user ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are 100% correct. Sorry, that was an unfair comment by me above; I'm feeling a bit miffed that I feel that I tried to do you a favour, losing an hour of sleep last night to document stuff to you, and that is feels like you not only threw it in my face, but that you then use my dirty face as evidence against me. I'm retracting the talk page ban then from last Spring (though now do you find a way to use my retraction and apology against me?). Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And by "took a run at me out of nowhere", I assume you're talking about the fact that I commented on this thread, which is about your behavior, and which I did not initiate? Were you somehow under the impression that by banning me from posting on your talk page you were banning me from commenting on your disruptive behavior when other editors bring it up for community discussion? Did you believe that by inappropriately and inaccurately referring to personal and private information about me in response to that was in some way a positive contribution to that discussion? Is it your contention that by e-mailing me the results of your opposition research – which I can only assume you planned to use against me – you were in some fashion endearing yourself to me, rather than demonstrating the extent of the ammunition you had gathered? Are you fucking kidding me? I am decidedly closer to death than I am to the beginning of my life, and I sure as hell wasn't born yesterday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I was referring to you joining the peanut gallery at Bishonen's talk page earlier ... which I can't diff, because it never happened - in fact you haven't been there since 3 months. I said I wasn't very good at this enemy thing right? I think I got you and Sitush mixed up a bit (your styles are similar) ... as he seemed to vanish and then you appeared. Either way - that's a 100% error on my part. And I do apologize. Again ... which is nothing but true ... though I'm sure you won't believe it. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you have every right to post here. I just wish you'd stop assuming I have any motives in that email other than being helpful. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't think it was part of this discussion. I was simply showing you stuff at Wikipedia that I thought you may not know about so it can revdeled. If you did know about all of it, I don't know why outing even applies - given you in your own words, say the exact thing I'm now in trouble for, for merely alluding to. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment to Nfitz – At this point, you are doing yourself no favors by editing here. I suggest you accept the TBan, with a right to appeal in six months, and ask for a close. You can still show that you are a valuable editor in mainspace. If you continue to defend yourself, you may well be blocked. Folks here have better things to do and patience has limits. Objective3000 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 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:Scor140399

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

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

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

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

Thank you Alex Shih. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:109.153.185.33 on Liberal Democrats article

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

The addition of unsourced membership figures has now spread to Conservative Party (UK). David J Johnson (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a short time. It is however a dynamic range (BT) so I have watchlisted the articles concerned. Black Kite (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This IP appears to have re-surfaced as 217.42.40.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with exactly the same unsourced changes. David J Johnson (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

76.116.148.215 disrupting two pages

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

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

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

We go by reliable secondary sources here. The OC Register source is easily a reliable source (and not outdated - it's from June 2016), and the other two are not as strong but good sources nonetheless. We go by reliable sources because otherwise, anyone could arrive here and claim that they had "insider knowledge" that contradicts your "insider knowledge." Additionally, your Six Flags source is a primary source, which is not the worst thing in the world, but not as good as a secondary source - and that source plainly states "largest regional theme park in the world", whatever that is. My guess is the "regional" qualifier is there to allow them to claim "largest" by excluding Disney from "regional" theme parks, but who knows. Either way, Animal Kingdom is 580 acres, and Great Adventure is 510.

You also should've discussed this on your own talk page, or the talk pages of the articles in question, long before now, but you ignored my attempts to discuss. I'm glad you're finally discussing now but it shouldn't have taken an administrator warning to get you to do this. I'd also strongly suggest you register an account. Rockypedia (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay you've now reverted again, here, without continuing the discussion or even acknowledging the WP:CYCLE link I pointed out to you on your talk page. Admins, I give up. I don't think this IP is interested in a discussion. Rockypedia (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Semiprotected both for a week, to encourage the IP to use talk or find something else to work on. If that doesn't work longer semiprotection may be warranted. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

User:MilwaukeeHD repeatedly adding erroneous information

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

Blocked for 24 hours by Malinaccier a couple of hours ago. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

And opened an account as Raymonda18 minutes later. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Raymonda18 has been indeffed as a sock. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

There is repeated vandalism on the Talk:Marcus Garvey article by User:170.55.167.186. Mitchumch (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks--now blocked. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Huyandrew99

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

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

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

Indeffed (which doesn't necessarily mean forever) but a good reason will need to be put forward before an unblock request is granted. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion - 156.67.241.52 - hacking 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.

---

In revision ID 799386259 to the article Sombra (Overwatch) this user (User:156.67.241.52) claimed to be a member of Anonymous, and made a threat to hack the site and reveal information. As I am not a WP:ADMIN, I do not believe that I have the authority to assess whether the threat is credible, and therefore I believe this requires the attention of an administrator. However, as this does not involve violence, I do not believe it qualifies for WP:EMERGENCY intervention. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like garden-variety schoolkid vandalism. WP:RBI (User:Widr did the "B"). DMacks (talk) 15:24, 7 September 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.

Rangeblock request - 2600:1700:20C0:44F0:*

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.

---

Range contribs since Sept. 1: [60]

That 2600:1700:20C0:44F0:* range has been disruptively editing (mostly blanking) the past two days. Yesterday, this user repeatedly blanked content on List of Clarence episodes, which resulted in a block of one of the IPs by Widr. Today, the same range was blanking on OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes and List of OK K.O.! Let's Be Heroes episodes. These IPv6 addresses are all in the same subnet and the behavior suggests they are the same person.

Would an admin familiar with rangeblocks please consider blocking this user for a short time to stop the disruption? Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done /64 subnet blocked for 31 hours à la Widr's block on the single IP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 15:44, 7 September 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.

New editor removing links

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.

---

New editor User:Specialwikipedib (talk) has repeatedly ([61] [62] [63]) removed inter-wiki links from articles without explanation. The editor has also commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Shen (which as seen other SPAs) and likely tried editing to look less suspicious. Requesting action.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably needs to be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What action are you asking for? The links they are removing are all red links. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/123Aristotle is probably the place to report this. ~ GB fan 18:28, 7 September 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:Amirul Azimin

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.

---

Amirul Azimin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user needs an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block ASAP. They're leaving notices on people's userpages such as this among many others. Can an admin also delete the userpages that this user is creating? Thanks. 101.51.51.131 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Plainly WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It looks like others have caught the inappropriate edits to user pages, etc. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 7 September 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.

NOTHERE issues with Xvonkho

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.

---

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

Today, Xvonkho blanked content on Alt-right in what were clearly bad-faith edits (edit summaries were misleading and contained B Button vandalism). This user appear to have only 3 constructive edits ([64], [65], and [66]). Their other edits were related to a hoax article they created titled Lunar Church of the Moral Bible, copy vios on White Rose, and nonsense on Misandry ([67] for example).

In short, this editor appears to be NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeffed. GAB^gab 21:54, 7 September 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 problematic edits continue after 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.

---

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

Edits before block:

• [68] [69] [70]
• [71] [72] [73]
• [74] [75] [76] [77]
• [78] [79]
• [80] [81]
• [82]
• [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

Edits after the block has expired:

• [89]
• [90]
• [91]
• [92]

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

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

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

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

@That man from Nantucket: Why are you questioning my timeline for and did you even look at the whole talk page? I try to engage with this editor before and never get an reply, here the diffs to prove it [93] [94] [95] [96]. Another editor PaleoNeonate, give this editor advice to communicate but ignore it and keep on editing before Berean Hunter has blocked them. You seem like you're are only accusing me for ownership, which I not. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't question your timeline. I asked why was your timestamp on a comment different than the one in your text. It made things difficult to follow. If you think an admin here is going to take action based upon comments you and others made three months ago in conjunction with the ip user's current behavior, you got another think coming. I still don't see a problem with the ip user, other than you don't like his edits. What about them, still remains to be seen. His grammar is certainly better than yours.That man from Nantucket (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: I don't be making rude comments about my editing, I been editing Wikipedia longer than you have, and I know that failure to discuss your edits is considered disruptive. You clearly don't understand this issue here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you are not engaging the ip editor in a good faith manner. What edits do you find objectionable? What is wrong with them? You can't just plaster the user's talk page with a template saying they are being disruptive, revert their edit and then come here to complain about it. Well, I mean you can, because that is exactly what you did, but rather your shouldn't. What you should do is open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page and say what you think is precisely wrong with their edit. Hint: saying it is "disruptive" is not helpful. Ok, so you have a problem with the grammar. Quote the part of the edit you think is grammatically incorrect. Don't just revert all of their edits because you have a problem with one edit. If they keep re-adding that content, then ask for assistance on one of the many project pages or open up an incident at the edit warring notice board. In short, don't come here asking admins to block someone just because the editor was blocked 3 months ago, because you haven't made a recent reasonable attempt at discussion with this user. Exhaust the many other options available to you first. The admins have far better things to do then to get involved in content or style disputes. If anyone else has read my screed, I suggest you close this section and direct TheAmazingPeanuts to follow the steps I've outlined. That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: Don't tell me what I can do okay, I have reported these kind of edits before and nobody didn't have a problem with them, I'm not gonna not take advice from you. All you saying is based on your opinion and I don't like the way you talk to me. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Life is full of disappointments. I'm not entirely certain the you are recognizing the irony of you complaining about the ip's grammar and them not doing what you tell them to do. There's probably a word for that. That man from Nantucket (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: What the hell are you talking about? You didn't even bother to look at these diffs I show you earlier [97] [98], I been trying to get a reply from this IP and nothing came from it, even other editors who have more experience than I do, admitted that I trying to engage with this IP. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Failure to communicate is indeed a problem (reaching consensus is impossible without it (WP:CONSENSUS) when edits are challenged, restoring changes without discussion is also problematic, we have a good WP:BRD explanatory supplement about this). I however also see a lot of reverts of edits which do not appear problematic (not only edits from this IP address user), so I'm not sure what to say (owning attitude is already explained above, I'm not sure if this is what is happening, but it's not impossible, but I see no strong evidence of this through talk page warnings)... Many of the IP address editor edits appear to be copy-editing, which is not uncommon and rarely contentious. Some copy-editors have been blocked for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, like happened before for this IP address. —PaleoNeonate – 11:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I don't wanna be that editor who think they own a article, which they not. Most of the edits are not bad, but most of the changes essentially only contributed to corruption the language and added nothing to the content. I don't understand what the editor was trying to achieve. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• <blasts Ride of the Valkyries and goosesteps around the thread>Vatch yourselfs. Ze grammar Nazis are cummingk! In all honesty, I don't think it matters how poor someone's grammar is on talk threads, but poor grammar in articles is a problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: I completely agree with you, I don't think it's matters how bad someone's grammar in the talk page is, it's matters in the article's text. The reasons I reported this issue because the IP's unnecessary changes to hip-hip related articles, take a good look at the diffs above and you can see why I have a problem with them. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No, no no. You needed to wait for someone else to criticize my grammer before responding. See, you came here to (essentially) complain about the IP's grammar. Our limerick-friendly friend then complained about your grammar. Then, I showed up in a puff of lame jokes to make fun of the grammar criticisms. Then someone should have pointed out the bad grammar in my bad joke, and so on and so forth. We need to keep the cycle going. That way, it's bad grammar, all the way down. And everyone would be having fun. But now you've ruined it all. For shame!

• But seriously, someone needs to block this IP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Yeah, this IP need to be blocked. I see no point to have this editor to be around, if they not gonna respond to their fellow editors. I hate editors who keep quiet about edits. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Block him for what? I see no actionable diffs presented here since he came off his vacation. The alarms of poor grammar are exaggerated. I've seen a community tolerance level for far worse. If an admin wants to poke through his recent contribution history looking for sin, who knows what they will find. I took a peek and it was your garden variety gnome type of edits. Are you seeing something different, or are you just predicting the future? If it's the latter, WP:ROPE applies. Otherwise I stand by my earlier assessment that there are some ownership/style issues in play here.That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: You don't seem to get it, MPants at work and PaleoNeonate have already point out their problems with this IP's edits and their refusing to respond. If you don't understand about this topic, stay out of it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to understand; WP:OBLIGATION means precisely what it says. No one owes you anything here. Is the ip violating the accepted norms of WP:BRD? He was bold and you reverted. You still haven't shown where he is re-adding his changes. What you have presented is simply four articles he has had the unmitigated gall to edit. WP:AGF, try it. That man from Nantucket (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The impression I got (I admit, I didn't click every diff) was that the IP is consistently making edits using very bad grammar. If so, that's a problem. If that's not the case, then That man from Nantucket is spot on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: If you look at my contributions on Wikipedia, my editing are mostly on articles related to albums, and I know editors who been on Wikipedia longer then me can tell that something wrong about this IP's editing, if you don't know, this IP have been editing since March and most of the edits are very questionable, here's more diffs before the block [99] [100] [101], and diffs after the block has expired [102] [103] [104]. This editor also have a bad habit of linking common words to articles, words like "singer", "songwriter" and "recording artist", which is against the guidelines (WP:OVERLINKING). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• @MPants at work: Taking a look at their recent edits since the block expired, I don't see many problems with their grammar. Some edits look perfectly fine. But even if there are, there have been no reasonable attempts to discuss this with the ip. Accusations of disruption, being told not to edit articles because they are "just fine as they are" and especially generic demands to "explain your edits" (instead of giving the ip exact diffs) are quite unreasonable. Since I'm not a mind reader, I suspect the ip was blocked because they were restoring their edits without using the talk pages. That's edit warring and warrants a block. But there is no edit warring going on at the moment. The ip has made some changes, Peanuts reverts and insists upon an explanation for the edits that just were reverted! As long as the ip is not attempting to reapply his edits without engaging, there is no edit warring. ANI isn't for resolving content or style disputes or even guideline enforcement. I just don't see the reasons our legumes themed editor is throwing to the wall in hopes one will stick warrants a block to protect the project from the ip. That man from Nantucket (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@That man from Nantucket: This editor have been reverted by other editors too, by Atlantic306 [105] [106], ThePlatypusofDoom [107], Koala15 [108], and MarnetteD [109], so I not the only one who reverted this IP's edits. I even asked another editor Ss112, in back in May and he too agreed that these edits are a problem. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Everyone gets reverted now and then. Don't take it personally and assume good faith. And this isn't May. Stop bringing that up. He was blocked and served his time. I'm out.That man from Nantucket (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm seeing what looks like disputed accuracy. The IP's grammar really doesn't seem all that bad (it's not good, but...), but some of these edits look like factual disputes. Consistent bad editing certainly can be a problem. But whether an admin wants to take a look at this is not up to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked six months for repeating the same behavior. You have to engage in communication with the other editors who are raising concerns. Waiting for a block to expire and then picking up the baton at the same spot and trying to run with it again is attempting to circumvent the reasons for the original block in the first place. He absolutely does have to communicate.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• @TheAmazingPeanuts: May I offer you some advice? When communicating through text, specifically online but in other mediums as well, one's grammar is the equivalent of one's appearance and mannerisms when communicating face to face. If you want people to give you your due respect, and to presume that you are intelligent and thoughtful, it would be best to always present yourself as such. Using poor grammar on talk pages -while clearly not a problem per se- can create difficulties when others are asked to weigh in with judgements based in whole or in part on your words. I would advise you to use the best grammar you can, except when you are cracking wise, making an off-the-wall comment or making a point of using poor grammar. Of course, this is just advice, and as I said, it's ultimately incumbent on everyone to continue to assume good faith, regardless of whether or not "u rites gud". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work: You are completely right, I admit that my grammar isn't the best ether and I probably didn't made my report clearly, which is why nobody didn't respond to my report quickly. I try to made my reports more clearer next time, to be honest, I rarely report here so I sorry if my grammar can be confusing to some. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:53, 7 September 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 sockpuppet of blocked 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.

---

104.59.227.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest IP of editor Anne_Margery, who was blocked for adding unsourced changes to TV show articles, i.e changing episode numbers, etc. Just for reference, note the crossover in articles edited and identical insults in the edit summary between the above IP and this other IP sock of theirs. Eik Corell (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, edit summaries revdelled. GAB^gab 23:49, 7 September 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 SPI Recreations

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Пугачов Иван (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Пугачов Иван Иванович (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Виктор Пугачов (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 212.94.223.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - globally blocked

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

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

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

I agree with JamesBWatson; I wanted to see if the user would actually move to another another title (the reason for salting in this instance) - it also helps me to further prove socking if anything. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a tough one. For now I'll just add it to the sock reports since there doesn't seem to be much else that can be done. Thanks, both of you! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to block a valid revision about Isopanishad.

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

Please see my edit below:

---

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

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||

Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |

Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||

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

---

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

Please render Justice.

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

References

This has nothing to do with justice... This just seems to be a content dispute in which you have been blocked for edit warring. You failed in your mediation request and now are forum shopping it here. You need to gain consensus on the talk page of the article. If you can't, then you need to accept the fact that whatever you want to add does not belong in the article. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You have started multiple talk-page discussions on the same topic. That's disruptive to the discussion and attempts to improve the article because it makes it hard to know which is the "current" discussion and leads to the same editors making the same points without progress. You have claimed there is consensus for your preferred article content when there is not. That's disruptive and impolite. Much of the talkpage discussion seems fairly well-mannered and focused on the article content, and pointing out what aspects of your suggestions are (in others' views) against which specific content policies/guidelines. Please provide specific links to certain comments you find objectionable and we can give some specific feedback. DMacks (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, they are using words like 'damned' and making fun of me saying I do not know 0 - 0 = 0. They are threatening me with blocks and calling me boring. However, that is not important. What is important is how they are ganging to prevent a perfectly legitimate addition because of their prejudice and bias. Specifically, I have posted my addition above. Kindly, inform me what is wrong with that addition? I did not get a response to this question on the talk page as well. In both the discussions, my comment is the last without any answer. The editors are just equivocating and citing of non-relevant Wikipedia policies. What policy is being violated by the above addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkn (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

An unhelpful digression from the topic. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You need to stop or you will be blocked. At this point, you are displaying competency issues. You are trying to edit against clear consensus. Drop it, or be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Wilkn, you may ignore outright block threats from editors who are not administrators. They do not have the power to block. See Wikipedia:List of administrators. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC) It's not a threat, it's what's going to occur if he keeps disrupting like he is. Or am I wrong? --Tarage (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC) You are entitled to state your opinion, for whatever it's worth, provided you present it as your opinion. Please bear in mind that your lack of adminship is not immediately apparent. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I have no delusions of grandeur, nor do I have any desire to take up a mop. I'm simply saying what everyone is thinking here. Take a look at the Infinity talk page and tell me he's not heading for another block if he keeps spamming this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC) @Mandruss: People don't have to announce who they are on this page. In addition, many block "threats" are included in Category:Standardised user warning templates. Why take exception now? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC) Please show me a warning template that says, "Drop it, or be blocked." ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC) How about {{uw-generic4}} "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia", or any other level 4 warning, for that matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC) If the word "may" means nothing to you, I don't know what to say. Warnings are worded carefully and precisely, and I read them equally carefully and precisely. The point here is that empty threats are nothing but attempts to "win" by intimidation, and that is not Wikipedian behavior. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict) What a weird argument to take on. {{Uw-harass4im}} among others say pretty much that. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not edit your comments after you have posted them if they have already been replied to. --Tarage (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage: Stop acting as admin when you are not. I am waiting for the real administrators to act on my request above. Wilkn (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

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

• Support As nominator. --Tarage (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Tarage Explain incorrectness of my "inclusion." I have provided my entire edit above for your reference. Wilkn (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wilkn do you or do you not understand what consensus means? --Tarage (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think there's a need for this, I've already warned Wilkn re to WP:ARBIPA sanctions and if this behavior continues then any admin (or I) can impose a topic ban from the Upanishads/Indian philosophy topic area (which is covered by the sanctions and is applicable here), unless of course someone decides to block before that. —SpacemanSpiff 03:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Then I suggest you do it, because he clearly is NOT getting the point. How many days does this have to go on? --Tarage (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• No action, per SpacemanSpiff. It took me a while to figure out that the dispute is in Infinity article. Wilkn: what you quote is not Isopanishad, it is a part of boiler plate preface and colophon we find in some Hindu manuscripts added by scribes in later centuries. Your good faith effort as well as your proposed summary comes across as POV pushing. Please stop this. The concept of infinite, in the sense of atma / soul being endless and without bounds, is found in chapters 23–25 of Chandogya Upanishad (even older than Isha), but the context of those ancient Indian sages is not a number or number theory, it is philosophy and human freedom. Context matters. @SpacemanSpiff: / others: if block becomes necessary, a topic ban over Upanishads/Indian philosophy space articles may not suffice because the article in dispute is in the math-space articles. Or, perhaps broadly construed would need to be explained to them. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Karlfonza

Discussion has been re-opened at the main noticeboard. Alex ShihTalk 01:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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 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 would like to ask for User:Plasmic Physics either be blocked or topic banned from the WP:RD. They are trying to emotionally blackmail people into answering questions on the RD to help them with their plans to carry out experiments which could be risky, apparently without competent supervision. I removed the nonsense once and gave them an only warning that that crap wasn't welcome on the RD, but they reverted. I've removed again but in the absence of an assurance from Plasmic Physics that they will never try to such nonsense on the RD again, I think they either needed to be blocked or topic banned from the RD. You can see the question and responses here [110], my second removal. My first removal was [111] and it was added back here [112]. To be clear I don't know enough of the chemistry to say, how risky these plans are and most likely wouldn't comment on the issue even if I did, but another editor has expressed concerns and one of their responses was what brought this here:

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

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

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

It's OK Nil, he's in New Zealand. He'd have to go full China Syndrome before it affects the rest of us. -Roxy the dog. bark 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh and my warning is here [113] Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Irrespective of whether you are asking for health and safety advice, no editor should be seen as "doing [you] a disfavour" if they choose not to give you advice. If anything, I would go as far as saying that no editor should answer any question where another editor might potentially be putting themselves at risk, even if that editor were qualified to do so. Blackmane (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Public opinion on an abstainence is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that I see it as a disfavour, since I will be put at a disadvantage, which is included in the definition of 'disfavour'. Level of risk is both relative and subjective, not absolute. Just about every action in life has a level of risk involved, from stirring a hot cup of tea to crossing a busy street. It should be every user's prerogative to decide for themselves, whether abstaining or engaging carries more risk to the poster of any particular querry. I was hoping that other users would consider my potential disadvantange when making that decision for this querry. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what all the fuss is about. Here at Wikipedia editors blow up all the time. EEng 05:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne is correct in stating that you are emotionally blackmailing editors to help you. Whether you see it as a disfavour or anything should not be relevant to anyone, nor should it be a point to be used to coerce editors to offer advice. I daresay legal ramifications could arise should an editor suggest something which you then go and do, and blow yourself up. Every action in life has a level of risk involved is a total red herring and has nothing to do with what is being discussed here. That sort of risk is risk that an individual takes upon themselves. To take your example, what you're saying is basically "I want to cross this road and would like your advice on how to do it. If you don't give me that advice, I'm going to cross anyway but if I get hurt crossing this road, you should feel bad for not helping me." Blackmane (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is emotional blackmailing. I suspect that you and Ein are implying the Self-Punisher's Threat type of manipulation, which is an incorrect assesment. The conditional statement in your interpretive extension of my example would be more correct if changed to: "I'm going to cross anyway, but if you don't give me that advice, I may get hurt crossing this road, you may feel good for helping me." This reordering changes the causuality of the statement - here I'm not making a threat of reprisal if my request is not met, since my action to cross is a cause not a consequence.

Furthermore, I only raised the point of disfavour as a counter point when Wnt implied that abstainence would do me a favour, H&S-wise. So, I believe that my right to respond was only fair.

In regards to the mention of red-herring, I was meaning that many other questions have risks associated, maybe less obvious and less likely, but risks all the same, which users freely choose to ignore. For instance, the question on Liquid gas containers - the poster may attempt to test for themselves whether some liquid gas containers do actually become brittle following one of the respponses from another user, and injure themselves in the process. However, that does not seem to be a concern for anyone. In addition, this sort of risk is also of the same type as referred to in your response, as I will be taking it upon myself as an individual. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, do not feel emotionally blackmailed. Now will you go do whatever dumb thing it is you plan to do, and leave the rest of us to build an encyclopedia? EEng 08:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We should help this guy by writing to his Faculty, and telling them to watch out for a nutter in a lab coat with a maniacal laugh. "THEY SAID I COULDN'T DO IT. AHA. HAHA. AHAHAHAHA". -Roxy the dog. bark 08:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well now, invoking the concept of a DA and calling my venture 'dumb' might be a bit of an overreaction, as we've yet to confirm any actual risks, hwoever likely or severe, from a topically educated user. In either case, I am glad that at least one person does not feel manipulated by a post(s) made in good faith.

That said, I will indeed continue the course, although that does not mean that I will discontinue aiding with the "building [of] an encyclopedia", and, yes, I have been partaking in that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:Plasmic Physics what we need to close this thread is for you to write something like "I get it that what I wrote, saying that people should give me advice if they really think I might hurt myself, upset people. I won't write anything like that again." If Plasmic Physics won't write that I suggest they be given a preventive 24 hour block to ensure that they understand that we will not accept that behavior. The issue of this thread is that behavior, nothing more.Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't garuantee that anything I write in good faith won't cause upset. It can't be helped if some people are easily offended by conclusions of sound reasoning. I simply stated a reasonable counter-argument, and I never said "should".

You and Ein insist on calling this incident a result of 'behaviour', which I find offensive to my character, as though I intentionally or wrecklessly caused offense. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this? We're being trolled by a schoolboy. EEng 04:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please close this. I don't think that Einne's actions of deletion, reversion, and ultimately creating this incident discussion fits in with the description of a troll. Their actions do however suggest vexatious litigation, especially as there appears to be a history of frivolous incident reports, and knee-jerk reactions. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:46, 7 September 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 to be clear: it's Plasmic Physics that's the schoolboy troll (and not a very accomplished schoolboy at that, given his use of the "word" wrecklessly). EEng 12:55, 7 September 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.

Manny Pacquiao steroid allegations and consistent 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.

---

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

Even if this is a BLP issue, I don't see a reason to deal with it here. Either take it to the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Especially since this seems to be only a dispute over the lead as the content is well covered in the article. Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I should clarify when I say 'take it to the article talk page' I mean continue to deal with it on the article talk page, and if necessary use some method of WP:dispute resolution such as taking it to WP:BLP/N. I also see you seem to be proposing to remove the entire content. While I'm not commenting on the merits of including the content in our article, the BLP page itself clear that well sources allegations can be included so simply saying they are just allegations and very negative is not necessarily sufficient under BLP. In other words, even with the BLP issues, I don't see any reason for this content dispute to be on ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The allegations are well documented and notable so WP:NPOV requires including them in the article (see also WP:WELLKNOWN). The section contents look fine to me, though people who follow the topic more closely might be better attuned than I am about what constitutes due weight in the context of rest of the article. As Nil says, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to ask for outside examination, or an RFC or mediation (if that's still a thing) might help. I don't see anything approaching an admin incident report here. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Despite the content dispute, the disputed content is being discussed on the article talk page. There are no current BLP issues on the article, the steroid allegations are well known and well sourced. Unless someone has something new to add here, then I suggest this report is closed and we get back to improving the article in question. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

All it required was the removal of the first line. Your removal of 84,951 bytes was slightly OTT. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

There is zero proof whatsoever that Pacquiao has ever used performance-enhancing drugs. It is important to realize that Pacquiao is a high-profile figure, so naturally there will be people who are desperate for media attention who will gossip and speculate about him. The allegations are based purely on unsubstantiated rumors and do not belong in the article. That the baseless allegations are documented does not change the fact that the allegations are baseless. The inclusion of the allegations in the article is a clear BLP violation. Songisjust (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Songisjust is obviously a sock account. The account was created less than 24 hours after the previous sock account that was operating on the Manny Pacquiao article was blocked and already understands BLP policy? I think not. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sleeping_is_fun Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Collect this is a BLP issue, not an ANI issue. Let's focus on the discussion on the BLP noticeboard and request this one closed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a person has made a charge of "SOCK" about an editor on this board seems, alas, a lack of understanding as to why such charges can only be made at WP:SPI and may be something an admin might notice here. And I note the same charge was iterated, along with personal attacks, at the BLP/N noticeboard. Collect (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Manny Pacquiao has been given temporary full protection due to continual edit warring. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:54, 8 September 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.

Could someone please revoke talk page access

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.

---

For Braves404. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 9 September 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:Pillowfluffyhead and User:Ronhjones

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. Quite by chance, I have noticed some very odd behaviour from this user, an associated IP, and an administrator who responded to the user.

Firstly, observations about the user:

• The IP address 24.91.248.60 and the user are one and the same. See User talk:24.91.248.60 and User:Pillowfluffyhead
• The IP's very first edit was to WP:AIV - see Special:Contributions/24.91.248.60. This indicates that the person making the edits is not new to Wikipedia, though under what username or IP they edited previously, I do not know.
• The user seems mostly concerned with reporting other users. I do not see any contributions to articles other than reverts, many of which are clearly inappropriate.
• The user has made accusations of vandalism which are entirely without basis: [114],[115],[116]
• The user has made several incorrect accusations that usernames violate the username policy: [117],[118],[119]

Based on these observations, I believe that this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, but seems entirely or almost entirely dedicated to disruption.

Secondly, regarding the administrator.

• The IP, one day after their first edit, made a series of 16 reverts of edits made by another anonymous user, claiming "block evasion".
• At 23:00 on September 1, they left a message accusing the other anonymous user of sockpuppetry and vandalism:[120]
• At 23:01, they posted at WP:AIV:[121], offering only "LTA" by way of explanation
• At 23:04, User:Ronhjones blocked the other anonymous user for three months: see [122].

I find it astonishing that an administrator would take at face value a spurious AIV post by an anonymous editor, and without any further checking or analysis of the situation (that I can see; three minutes seems insufficient for there to have been any though), apply such a long block.

I am posting this here because a) I think User:Pillowfluffyhead's edits and behaviour deserve significant scrutiny and b) I think User:Ronhjones behaved entirely incorrectly in this incident. Thank you for your consideration. 60.90.97.250 (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Just want to point out the AbuseLog that triggered the block, which turned out to be a false positive edit by Anonymous44. I have no comment on the behavior of either editors. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• I dropped a few problems on Pillowfluffyhead's talk page; you can see them here, just before they reverted me saying "RVV" and without addressing the problems. GB Fan noted problems too. We should really have more people overseeing these Recent changes patrollers, maybe. The whole affair with the IP/Anonymous getting blocked would have been more clear earlier had it not been for this irritating habit of blanking the talk page. They did the same here after a comment or two from Kudpung--"hostile" remarks, apparently. Well, we're dealing with an editor whose every edit needs to be weighed carefully. Moreover, I am not convinced that this account, and the aforementioned IP, constitutes the entirety of their career here. I hope they'll be commenting here; if not, we should consider putting them on some kind of notice: this is too many screw-ups, and they're not innocent ones. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns about FPH's edits too. See [123] I also agree that the IP is unlikely to have been the user's first experience with Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I'm not known for beating about the bush, my comments could hardly be regarded as hostile. In fact I'm actually very supportive of new users who are trying to be genuinely helpful but just not getting it right. That said, this user, whose edit count under this account demonstrates very little experience (and that's what matters here - I haven't investigated further), should not be patrolling new pages at all. In fact they barely even qualify for vandalism patrol. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, SoftBank is an internet provider in Japan and may pozsibly be offering VPN services. Just thought it might be worth mentioning as 60.90.97.250 only began editing yesterday. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• The edits done by the IP were all unsourced. We do not just block because someone reports at AIV, we look at the last few edits. Lots of IPs report other editors at AIV, that is not unusual. You cannot use an edit count of an IP to see if they have been here before - there are way too many dynamic IPs in the system, they may well be a very experienced editor who just wants to edit as an IP - there are plenty that do. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong having previous experience under other IPs. I was just agreeing that to me this appears not to be a brand new editor, making what I interpret as apparent competency issues more concerning. If they don't have previous experience then it is inexperience rather than competency, but either way they should should be dissuaded from reviewing. Meters (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is all a bunch of garbage and I'm not going to comment here further. You are all entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine. I am never going to be a content creator, as that's not my strength. I've seen several admins get promoted at RFA without being content creators. Heck, if you guys want to block me over this nonsense, be my guest. I'm going to keep doing what I am best at until that time comes (if it comes). Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• If anybody has evidence indicating what connection there might be to an older IP or account, the place to report is SPI, and if not then it's not terribly productive to keep bringing it up here; we can't do anything about it without evidence. As for the current issues, PFH, there's no requirement to create content and people contribute to the encyclopedia in many ways, but when a number of experienced editors are trying to give you advice about how what you're doing is not correct, you should at least try to take that advice. Saying you're just going to keep doing what you're doing isn't a good way to participate here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So User:Ronhjones, you blocked an editor for three months because their edits were "all unsourced"? Your claim is false: many of the edits included sources, eg [124][125][126]. Even if it were true, where in the blocking policy is there any support for your action? If you want material to be sourced, you request a citation; you don't block the editor who added it. I do not think what you've said here is any kind of explanation for what you did. In the three minutes which elapsed between IP1 posting at AIV and your blocking of IP2 as a result, exactly what did you do to appraise yourself of the situation? What part of the blocking policy did you consider justified your action? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Your claim, 153 etc., is belied by the fact that {{uw-unsor3}} and {{uw-unsor4}} warn the user that persisting will result in a block. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the user was adding references in their edits, how is your point in any way relevant? Which claim of mine is belied by it? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There were no references added on the day in question. One edit changed the subject name by one letter, often that is regarded as sneaky vandalism.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjones (talk • contribs)

There were references added on the day in question. I posted the diffs. I cannot find any edit which changed the subject name by one letter. Perhaps you can post a diff. At the moment you've falsely claimed that the user's edits were "all unsourced", then falsely claimed that "there were no references added". I hope it's not a third false claim.

I do not understand why you haven't given a clear explanation of your actions. You're being extremely evasive here, and that troubles me. I hope you might in the end answer the questions I posted earlier: In the three minutes which elapsed between IP1 posting at AIV and your blocking of IP2 as a result, exactly what did you do to appraise yourself of the situation? What part of the blocking policy did you consider justified your action? Do you intend in the future to block anyone for three months based on the AIV postings of an anonymous troublemaker? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, User:Pillowfluffyhead is not here to make an encyclopaedia. Their single response to this thread confirms that. I remain troubled by Ronhjones, who blocked someone for three months without doing any basic checks of the situation, and has not given a clear explanation of their reason for doing so. Is anyone else bothered by that? 153.231.201.93 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I wish to remain uninvolved as much as possible in user disputes (and as such rarely participate at ANI), but I wanted to note that I have blocked Pillowfluffyhead due to some of their recent edits (e.g. [127] [128] [129] [130] [131]). My block was made before I discovered this ANI thread and was not made because of any discussion here; I blocked because I saw vandalism that needed to be stopped immediately. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @K6ka: Suicide-by-admin? GAB^gab 00:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've left another message on Pillowfluffyhead's tp. That block would have come sooner or later anyway. They are a very young user and probably don't realise that Wikipedia is important stuff. I think we can close this now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Pillowfluffyhead said that his computer was hacked hence the vandalism. Subsequently the account has been indeffed as it has been compromised. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I deleted the attack vandalism from the Pillowfluffyhead user page and applied Full Protection, indef to the page. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 8 September 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 copyright violation

Copyright violations are completely outside of my wheelhouse. I apologized for brining this up here, but the instructions for filing a new case are cryptic. Since this board gets a lot of eyeballs, can someone please do whatever needs to be done in order to get someone to look at Chester the Molester which may be a cut and paste job from the World Heritage Encyclopedia? Since that appears to be an open source encyclopedia, it's possible that that article is infringing upon Wikipedia. I've not enough experience with it to know. Thanks. That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a mirror of us. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#World Heritage Encyclopedia -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi copyright violations

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 noticed that SlackerDelphi (talk · contribs) copy-pasted a block of text from a source without indicating it is a direct quote, at United States presidential election, 2016. I posted a warning suggesting they follow the guidelines at MOS:QUOTATIONS and WP:Close paraphrase. That should have been the end of it.

Unfortunately, they wrote this edit summary, "Removed false information from my talk page."

This attitude gave me reason for more concern. I took a look at some of their recent edits and found this; the content was an exact copy-paste from the NYT source. Another one from here copied into Maria Chappelle-Nadal.

After I posted essentially the above notice at SlackerDelphi's talk page, they used an edit summary to reply "removed the repetition of a lie. I did not violate copyright law. Go ahead and report me. I will not coward to your aggressive and childish behavior. Please stop writing on my talk page."

So here we are. It's too much work for other editors to have to follow this person around, find where they copy-pasted, and rewrite it for them. Phrasing like "I will not coward to your aggressive and childish behavior" suggests an editor for whom English is not a first language, who sometimes resort to copying because writing original, grammatically correct English is too difficult. Whatever the reasons, they have no intention of stopping.

Requesting a block of SlackerDelphi for ongoing copyright violations.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic example of someone that is engaged in an edit dispute on a topic United States presidential election, 2016 and he wants to turn it into a crucify the other editor who will not bow down to his version of presenting material on Wikipedia. Yes, I told him to go ahead and report me because I do not feel like I did anything wrong. He just wants to use the administrative processes to shut me up and to stop me from editing a political article. It is as simple as that. If you review the edits that he points to you will see that I attributed each and every one of the sources from where the information was used. I not only provided citations please note that used unquestionable sources such as the New York Times, etc. This is classic battlefield mentality. Have fun looking at my edits. There is not much there. There are no copyright violations, etc. This is just classic fight the guys that don't see the article the way that you do.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I really tried to work with you. I gave you two opportunities to recognize what copyright violations are and to commit to avoiding them. I did not try to "shut you up". I kept your additions to the election article, only adding in-text attribution and broader context. After another editor deleted entirely one of your contributions, I proposed a compromise. There is ample evidence that content disputes are not a problem here, and that your collaboration has been welcomed and appreciated. The problem is the old CTRL-C CTRL-V. Copyright violation is a deal breaker. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of copyright review work every day. There are several groups of people, all of whom are committing copyright violations, but all of whom deserve some AGF because they simply don't know the rules. These groups include:

A. people who were never taught anything about copyright in school (or perhaps were tuned out when the discussion occurred), and think that if you can find something online, you can use it

B. People who have a vague notion of copyright but think that if they do not see the "all rights reserved" along with a copyright symbol, that the text is fair game and can be copied.

C. People who think that if you include complete citation of the sources, that it is okay

D. People who think that if you include a complete citation and place the material within quotation marks, no matter how long a passage, it's okay

E. People who think that if you copy some material and make a few changes to some words here and there that it is no longer a copyright violation

F. People who think that if they are the original author of the words, they can include them in Wikipedia (this is sort of true, but they need to file a specific permission statement which is almost never done).

None of these practices are acceptable, but in most cases, none of these practices are vandalism; it is simply incomplete knowledge of our convoluted copyright laws. This particular example sounds like group C. Again, it is incorrect but it is understandable that some people might think it is correct so please respond politely, rather than assuming they are trying to slip on over on us.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're exactly right. You types A-F are a good model, and C is very likely the case here. But what real difference do motives make? If blocks were issued as punishment, then innocent motives would be giving lighter punishment than sinister motives. But blocks are based entirely on a preventative model. I tried multiple times to get them to read WP:CV, MOS:QUOTE and WP:CLOP. Whether they trust my word or not, SlackerDelphi had the opportunity to find out what is allowed and to realize what to do to fix the problem. Regardless of the original motive, the only question is "how do we prevent this in the future?" As long as SlackerDelphi denies there was ever a problem, the only way to prevent it is a block. If they make a convincing case that it won't happen again, and clean up their previous messes, then no block is necessary. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I consider it quite problematic that SlackerDelphi flatly denies the copyright violations without engaging in a substantive discussion of the issues, responding only with combative edit summaries. That seems to be a pattern whenever other editors offer suggestions or criticisms on their talk page - denial, refusal to engage, and page blanking. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the evidence, it seems that SlackerDelphi is in the habit of copying content from cited sources and pasting that material into Wikipedia articles, without using quotation marks. This presents other people's writing as SlackerDelphi's own originally written paraphrase. That is simply not acceptable and I expect that SlackerDelphi will admit that error and abandon that pattern of behavior. Otherwise, a block seems in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Just make sure you don't unintentionally tell him that everything will be OK if he stops doing C (above) and starts doing D. EEng 04:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Looking through the history of their talk page, especially edit summaries, makes me wonder if SlackerDelphi is a sock or troll or something of the sort. Certainly doesn't seem to be a net positive. ansh666 08:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

SlackerDelphi is a sockpuppet [132] of NazariyKaminski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created 58 minutes after his previous sock, MaverickLittle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was blocked.- MrX 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The same pattern of copying text appears in MaverickLittle's edits. [133] => [134]. [135] => [136] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• That's some loud quacking. Blocked and tagged. Bishonen | talk 19:01, 9 September 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:Scott19982

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.

---

Scott19982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for about six months, and despite making around 1000 edits, his edits are poor and he is proving impossible to work with. While I and other editors have tried to correct him and guide him in the right direction, he persists in the same frustrating behavior and problematic edits. Specifically:

• He never leaves edit summaries, which means that other editors cannot understand what he is doing without looking at diffs. This is particularly frustrating when he makes many edits in a row. He also makes a large number of soft reverts without edit summaries, which is both rude and strongly discouraged.
• His edits often contain factual errors, as well as poor grammar and formatting like misspellings, missing punctuation, and bad capitalization; even when the information he adds is more or less correct, he does not make the effort to format it properly.
• He indiscriminately removes sources, yet he never adds citations even after repeated requests.
• He often adds text that is factually incorrect, and easily disproven with a quick Google search. Recent examples include adding a state that a railroad does not operate in and replacing a correct end date with a wrong date. Because he does not include citations, verifying information he adds is more difficult.
• He repeatedly misuses a certain parameter in {{infobox station}} despite numerous warnings and reverts (typical example). He has ignored when I have explained to him what is is doing wrong; when reverted, he simply repeats the edit without an edit summary.
• He received a weeklong block for sockpuppetry, yet did not acknowledge that he had done something disallowed.

He persists in these poor editing despite a large number of requests by numerous users on his talk page. He is no longer a newbie; if he cannot edit better than this after 1,000 edits, than I believe he lacks either the competence or the proper attitude to be an editor. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I know this isn't contributing to the discussion, but, can I just say that is the cleanest presentation of diffs that has ever been posted to AN/I. I'm going to have to start using it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indef. Regards, Swarm ♠ 06:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• I believe editors misbehaving like this should be blocked for 31 hours ,so they can reflect on what they have done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• No, the indef is the right call -- they've never posted to their own talk page [137], never responded to begin caught socking and just waited the block out. An indef gives a last chance to start interacting with the community and addressing its concerns. NE Ent 11:00, 9 September 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:24.28.5.226

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.

---

• 24.28.5.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists with long-term disruptive edits despite previous block, and subsequent warnings after a final warning:
• [138] [139] [140]

Warnings since previous block [141]:

• [142] BLP warn
• [143]
• [144]
• [145] final warning
• [146]
• [147]

Attempts to discuss disruption ignored:

• [148] ...

But just persists editing (while blanking talk warnings). Suggest block to prevent relentless disruption, (IP appears static with constant editing pattern - whitespace flipping, dab disruption, BLP violations). (mea culpa forum shop - AIV was wrong venue, as appears good faith, but many editors wasting time undoing almost all edits) Widefox; talk 11:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. ("Goblin" is a word coined by Alex Jones?[149] Oh, right.) I agree the IP seems fairly static, despite being marked "dynamic" at whatismyipaddress. Blocked for a week. Widefox, feel free to contact me on my page in case they simply wait out the block and then continue the disruption. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 9 September 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 pushing on Merle Dixon

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 feeling it's going to come to this again anyway, so I might as well get started on this now. It could be the same IP user who tried to remove the term "racist" from the article back in October/November, and/or the same person who tried to remove it in January, or just another person who figures "just because you use the n-word doesn't mean you're a racist", but an IP user removed it yesterday calling that a "controversial" opinion, while a new user with the "let me tell you what I'm about" username of "RevertSJW" again removed it while offering their own WP:OR interpretation of the plot. In the first round of this edit-warring, I figure I addressed the problem pretty clearly here on WP:AN/I, so admin Euryalus semi-protected the article to facilitate discussion. I posted some research to prove why that was an accurate descriptor using several reviewers commenting on the character as being racist, and no one bothered to respond. Since there has been edit-warring involved before and no discussion beyond edit summaries, I feel this is more of a behavior issue than a content issue. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do we really need an ANI thread about whether a fictional character is racist? Can't we all just get along? EEng 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The article's talk page thread is about whether the character is racist. The AN/I thread is about whether the editor(s) removing the word are POV-pusing and edit-warring. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And my concern is whether, in the grand scheme of things, this is worth bringing to ANI. We have actually racist editors to deal with, actually racist article subjects to deal with. And why don't you go back to admin Euryalus first? ANI is for immediately serious, or chronic longstanding, situations needing many eyes or big guns. EEng 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So... maybe I wasn't wrong after all? :) 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Any lone admin could have handled this. No need for the ANI full-court press. EEng 02:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have some serious reservations about someone with the username "RevertSJW". That doesn't seem like someone who's here to collaborate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Citation added, problem solved. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem not solved, RevertSJW is removing sources, Slate and McFarland, both of which are undeniably RS, RevertSJW is obviously not here to actually contribute. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked RevertSJW for edit warring, and I left a message advising RevertSJW to learn how to resolve content disputes without edit warring. Based on that username, I think this is going to end with an indefinite block, though. It basically translates to "I am here to edit war and POV-push". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into this. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:24, 9 September 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.

Rangeblock 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.

---

• Special:Contributions/2001:8003:6499:A500:*

Full list of IPs

Sorted 29 IPv6 addresses: 2001:8003:6499:a500:99e:59c1:7064:6c5a 2001:8003:6499:a500:1922:f120:2715:4b67 2001:8003:6499:a500:1984:b94:3561:f766 2001:8003:6499:a500:2029:4059:3e93:e31f 2001:8003:6499:a500:2526:3ce2:9f0a:66af 2001:8003:6499:a500:3486:5365:45b9:b9a3 2001:8003:6499:a500:34ce:966d:e87e:71e0 2001:8003:6499:a500:39bd:adfd:d023:7af4 2001:8003:6499:a500:3c4d:92d4:6ce2:a7df 2001:8003:6499:a500:4081:5320:94ff:4cbe 2001:8003:6499:a500:44bf:2fd9:fbb:bb8a 2001:8003:6499:a500:44ee:e484:8c6f:3471 2001:8003:6499:a500:48d6:f1c0:9ffe:a1d6 2001:8003:6499:a500:55de:afd1:f0da:62ac 2001:8003:6499:a500:5885:29a6:6329:93e3 2001:8003:6499:a500:6c0e:e0ad:c3f7:5e20 2001:8003:6499:a500:6c92:f29:66f0:9a58 2001:8003:6499:a500:8095:8a37:7147:7c9c 2001:8003:6499:a500:84a0:d5a4:312e:b234 2001:8003:6499:a500:955d:2cf6:3e2c:7e69 2001:8003:6499:a500:9d51:88a9:a0b9:d96f 2001:8003:6499:a500:a1c2:c9a3:3b27:feca 2001:8003:6499:a500:b198:e05:bf28:9946 2001:8003:6499:a500:d8e9:b1f4:9d80:e962 2001:8003:6499:a500:dcf8:6f9b:1ecb:fb0d 2001:8003:6499:a500:e932:e6ba:61a7:ce11 2001:8003:6499:a500:ec53:eb3a:7452:3087 2001:8003:6499:a500:f0cf:9e99:5314:a37a 2001:8003:6499:a500:fdf1:a8f6:6f42:f578 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 1 /64 1 /64 29 2001:8003:6499:a500::/64 contribs

This range has targeted Just Dance articles with subtle vandalism by placing incorrect information where they can. Can we block 2001:8003:6499:a500::/64? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I see disruptive editing, warnings, four blocks and a failure to communicate over three or four weeks in this range, which is clearly the one user. /64 subnet blocked for two weeks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: User has returned under 121.208.243.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we add 124.180.240.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to that list as well? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Both blocked for two weeks à la the range block above. If they hop around a great deal, then protection of the article may be warranted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 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 and threats by User:CivilRightsandWrongs

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.

---

• CivilRightsandWrongs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Several relevant diffs: [150], [151], [152], [153], see history of User talk:Timawesomeness for more.
• Attacks started after this NPOV-related revert: [154]

–timawesomeness ⟨talk⟩ 09:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• • 6 hour old troll account. NE Ent 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Maile66. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:54, 9 September 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 made a mistake

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 add a citation to "Moses" and ended up removing ALL the citations. HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigre1313 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Easily fixed - you'd just accidentally removed the {{reflist}} tag which tells it where to place the citations. I've reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tigre1313: I placed an invitation for the Teahouse on your talk page, which is a better place to ask this type of question in the future. Enjoy, —PaleoNeonate – 23:50, 9 September 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.

Orlando IP rangeblock needed

Indeffed MusicLover650 has been creating sock accounts and also using various IP addresses from the area of Orlando, Florida, including lots of IPs assigned to the regional school system. The pattern shows activity during the week but not the weekend. Today was particularly trying, with seven different IPs showing up. Can we get a rangeblock on the following? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• Sep 5 168.184.241.191 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.243.172 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.243.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.249.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.251.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.252.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 5 168.184.253.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 1 168.184.247.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Sep 1 168.184.244.47 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 31 168.184.245.111 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 31 168.184.250.160 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.249.22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.243.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 30 168.184.243.249 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.251.20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.249.69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 29 168.184.247.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 25 168.184.240.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 24 168.184.245.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 23 168.184.241.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Aug 22 168.184.247.108 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

{{blockcalc}} results: All within the range of 168.184.240.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 23:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 21 IPv4 addresses: 168.184.240.142 168.184.241.59 168.184.241.191 168.184.243.63 168.184.243.172 168.184.243.213 168.184.243.249 168.184.244.47 168.184.245.111 168.184.245.236 168.184.247.54 168.184.247.108 168.184.247.208 168.184.249.22 168.184.249.34 168.184.249.69 168.184.250.160 168.184.251.20 168.184.251.165 168.184.252.183 168.184.253.1 Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 4096 4096 21 168.184.240.0/20 contribs 3072 512 3 168.184.240.0/23 contribs 256 4 168.184.243.0/24 contribs 512 3 168.184.244.0/23 contribs 256 3 168.184.247.0/24 contribs 1024 6 168.184.248.0/22 contribs 512 2 168.184.252.0/23 contribs 1414 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 256 2 168.184.241.0/24 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 128 3 168.184.243.128/25 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 256 2 168.184.245.0/24 contribs 128 2 168.184.247.0/25 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 128 3 168.184.249.0/25 contribs 512 3 168.184.250.0/23 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs 399 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs 64 2 168.184.243.192/26 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 64 2 168.184.249.0/26 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs 1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs 256 2 168.184.251.0/24 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs 21 1 1 168.184.240.142 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.59 contribs 1 1 168.184.241.191 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.63 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.172 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.213 contribs 1 1 168.184.243.249 contribs 1 1 168.184.244.47 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.111 contribs 1 1 168.184.245.236 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.54 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.108 contribs 1 1 168.184.247.208 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.22 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.34 contribs 1 1 168.184.249.69 contribs 1 1 168.184.250.160 contribs 1 1 168.184.251.20 contribs 1 1 168.184.251.165 contribs 1 1 168.184.252.183 contribs 1 1 168.184.253.1 contribs

• Practically no collateral issues, so rangeblocked for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Black Kite. Interested parties can see a history of this disruption at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650, a new LTA page. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Black Kite, User:Darryl Dwight Howard Warren Richardson was operating from 2607:FB90:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, a range blocked by Graham87 as, guess what, the Home of the Dog/Rapper vandal. Woof! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Aha! Good to know. These two vandals do have a lot of intersections, since they both edit rapper biographies. I changed the LTA case pages to match your finding. Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Wasechun tashunka

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.

---

Wasechun tashunka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• There has been a case where she has stated "so while there may be a rapidly decreasing Catholic majority in census figures, the country is officially secular. Either way, I hate Catholics, it makes no difference to me, but this encyclopedia has to be encyclopedic! Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 18:31, 9 September 2017 (UTC)"

She also had other cases where she support Anti-Catholic semitism and religious hatred.

• I request this religious hatred shall not be tolerated due the the horrific History of Irish Catholics in Ireland ,In which I request she will be Blocked for 31 Hours, to think in what she has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackW436 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@JackW436: "Either way, I hate Catholics, it makes no difference to me" Liar. Why did you lie? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:480B:1D12:4102:2962 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG incoming… Robby.is.on (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless anyone objects, I'm inclined to just indef the OP as NOTHERE. GoldenRing (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

JackW436. It appears that you have falsified a quote by inserting "I hate Catholics" where those words do not occur in the original. A block is in order for that behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 60 hours, but wouldn't object to a longer block. GAB^gab 21:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I fully support a short-term block for this most recent silliness (opening an ANI thread on the basis of transparently fabricated nonsense and what amounts to NPA on another editor). However, per GAB's note, it seems clear that a longer block is in order. Just last week an ANI thread (supported by 5+ uninvolved editors) advocated an indef block on this editor. This thread was archived without action - probably because the editor had been blocked for vandalising that very ANI thread, and wasn't capable of active disruption in the hours before the ANI thread was (automatically?) archived. Very soon after the block lapsed (and thread 'died') the disruption continued. As evidenced by this BS. It is clear (punctuated by this most recent nonsense) that JackW436 is unwilling or incapable of constructive contribution. And otherwise NOTHERE to work collaboratively or within the guidelines of the project. Guliolopez (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Indefinite Block (of JackW436)

Normally I wouldn't do this, but, I took a look at the thread Guliolopez linked to and I think this is necessary. It is very evident to me that this editor is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia in a productive and collaborative manner and will resort to the lowest personal attacks that they can to discredit or just plainly abuse any editor with whom they disagree with. From the previous AN/I thread;

• He responds to helpful assistance on referencing with a complaint, unsigned, about how that is racism and how they feel discriminated against because of it. They repeat this behaviour a mere day later after one of their articles is nominated for speedy deletion when they leave a stop discrimination order to the editor. Either the editor is unhinged or they are trolling us.

• Even more unbelievably a few days after the above has happened, they then post this discriminatory gem on a merge discussion insisting that foreigners may not touch the article to edit important information. You might also notice a couple concerning trends in each of their comments; a) they leave it unsigned and, more disturbingly, attach it to the end of other editors comments in brackets so as to suggest that that editor has said those words and b) they don't have a good grasp of the English language. An extremely recent example of this is their recent unblock appeal that is replete with poor grammar, poor punctuation, random capitalization, missing spaces, and just being generally incomprehensible. On top of the continued personal attacks against Wasechun tashunka. On the bright side, least they can spell the words they are using.

• If all of this weren't bad enough in and of itself, this report alone has them openly and unrepentantly lying to the wider community audience in the hopes of exacting revenge against Wasechun tashunka. Case in point, they originally opened this report to complain about the religious hatred that Wasechun tashunka displays for Catholics. Ten minutes later, they add in the religious hatred themselves to bolster their argument. When they get caught out on it, they add this silly little gem onto the back of the IP comment which ousted them. As it is, nobody is laughing.
• Then, and lastly, I skimmed through their edit history to see if there was anything else I could dig up to either explain their behaviour or just pattern out the disruption. I found this inexplicable, possibly trolling, edit on KGirlTrucker81's userpage. I found this edit calling Guliolopez a "horrible thing" as well as annoying. On top of that I came across competency issues which should have been resolved months ago. In this edit they add a broken citation and then soon after "fix" it here. This comes months after it was explained to them how to add references, and they had been provided guides on how to do so, but, they still don't know how to do it properly. They think the ref tags are all that's required. While the edit may be construed to have been a good faith attempt at constructive editing, it was neither necessary, probably overdue (unless Clonakilty is particularly famous or the inventor of the food) and poorly done. Interestingly, Begoon, had himself reached the same conclusion about the editor's competence a while ago. I think edits like these that Begoon had to remove gave him that impression. All of this eventually culminating into a final exasperated comment by Begoon, to which Jack responds with something along the lines of Begoon being delusional.
• Just some more incivility as a final nail in this coffin; Hayman30 and Shhhnotsoloud ruined Ireland and some diffs of blatant disruption as well; Two edits removing the AN/I report against them for copyright violations, ownership issues, and problems with AGF. The original report can be seen here; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive963#Copyvio, IDHT, OWN, 3RR and related disruption by User:JackW436.

What all of this means too me is very simple. The editor does not have the competency to edit the encyclopaedia. This in itself might be overlooked for a little while at least if they at the very least communicated civility and a will to collaborate. The only other alternative to an indefinite block that I can even being to recommend is; does anybody care enough to mentor them? The only reason I even ask is that there is this comment that just tells me this editor needs help. At the very least, letting them come back after 60 hours and carry on is not going to achieve anything productive and it's going to achieve that very soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Potentially interested parties from the previous AN/I report who !voted on the proposal; Alex Shih (as proposer), Softlavender, Blackmane, SophisticatedSwampert, Carrite, Davey2010, and Guliolopez. Other participants in the thread may also be interested in this as well; Oshwah, Wasechun tashunka, and SMcCandlish. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef or community ban or whatever the current lingo is. I had to go look at the earlier case [155] to remember the details of the matter, but agree with the above assessment now that I have. We assume good faith at first, but not to the point of insanity. While not a huge amount of time has passed since the last ANI, the behavior has worsened markedly, not improved. This isn't a second chance, it's the last straw in a long string of chances since multiple serious issues were first raised about JackW436's edits and behavior by many parties over many months, with the user going further and further off the rails in response to these concerns being raised, rather than getting on the right track. The observable pattern is to abandon trouble-making and policy-violation of one kind (e.g. WP:COPYVIO) to engage in another (e.g. personal attacks), while some behaviors (e.g. WP:NPOV problems in article content, and blatant trolling on talk pages like calling people racists for offering advice and policy pointers) have continued unabated. Outright falsification of evidence is beyond a WP:COMPETENCE problem (though it is also that – who on earth thinks that in a diff-tracking system you can get away with faking a post?). It's a fundamental "can the community trust you to participate at all, in any capacity?" question, to which the answer is inevitably "no". I don't think it's going to make any difference why these antics are happening (e.g. maybe we're dealing with a school kid); the user's participation is a net loss to encyclopedic productivity. There are lots of other sites, like 4chan, were people who want to rant about religion, ethnicity, politics, and other such matters, and call each other names, can do so until they're worn out.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef - Enough is enough already. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef (disclosure: involved editor) - In the spirit of full disclosure, I am an "involved editor" in this sorry affair (being the target of some of the NPA and other backlash from good faith attempts to assist this editor). However, as per my contributions to the previous ANI thread (on the behaviours of JackW436), indef seems to be the most appropriate recourse here. SMcCandlish has expanded on the history of problematic behaviour above, and so will not repeat ad nauseum. However, either the editor is legitimately incapable of constructive/collaborative contributions (in which case WP:CIR comes into play), or is feigning incapacity (in which case WP:TROLL comes into play). Either way, WP:NOTHERE applies. In short: strongly support indef. Guliolopez (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef block: Clearly NOTHERE and we don't have enough time to babysit for his actions. (One editor involved following the editor vandalized my userpage). KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef. Even without seeing any prior history, I was coming here to propose an indef anyway based on this latest episode. He faked an "I hate Catholics" comment by another editor, and reported them to ANI to try to get them sanctioned for it - that's truly abhorrent behaviour, and he shouldn't be able to walk away from it by just sitting out a timed block. Then in his unblock request he had the nerve to ignore his own behaviour and claim he was religiously offended by the simple act of stating the truth with appropriate citations! Having now also examined the diffs presented by Mr rnddude and SMcCandlish, I see little hope of any unblock from an indef - we don't want this kind of editor here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef per the last thread - To bring someone here claiming they made an offensive comment when infact that comment and no other offensive comment was made is disgusting!, Nothing's changed since the last thread - They're clearly NOTHERE and have severe CIR issues - If anything this thread strengthens my point. We don't need net-negative editors like this here, Get rid. –Davey2010^Talk 12:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment from talk page,:

  "I feel I am being attacked by all editor against me and I feel like it is 1 vs 10,But due to this Hatred against me i have nowhere to stand here". (On behalf of User:JackW436 - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC))

• Support indef block for all of the obvious reasons. Also, will an admin please revoke his talk page access for this vile comment [156]? - MrX 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support indef. Completely unacceptable behaviour, and he just keeps digging the hole deeper for himself. --bonadea contributions talk 13:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Well, I tried and it wasn't wanted at all. Seriously, I can offer no more guidance than that. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Indefblocked with talk page access removed. Enough is enough. ‑ Iridescent 13:46, 10 September 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.

EEng's editing at WT:TPG

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 Wikipedia search showed that EEng's first edit to WT:TPG occurred on 27 August 2017.  I asked him to verify this, but he replied that it was wrong, which is theoretically confirmed by the Editor Interaction Analyzer, here.  That one edit aside, the fact remains that he has no experience as a contributor to the WT:TPG page before 27 August 2017, and his dismissal of my question was hubris.

In the ensuing time since at least 1 September, EEng has committed himself to the disruption of discussion at WT:TPG, including personal attacks.  He currently has posted three pictures, one depicting a sex act; one of a dog intended to characterize editors as the dog; and the third a picture of a tool used to remove feces from a human colon.  I tried cleaning up one of his posts of disruption, here, but he objected.  With 2163 edits to ANI, EEng will have few editors here with whom he has not interacted, but I have no previous interaction that I can recall or that the editor analyzer brings to my attention.  A possible new exception is a recent edit to an article I created, at South Coast Air Basin, which may indicate that he has taken a recent interest in my contribution history. 

I request as a remedy the removal of the first and third pictures at WT:TPG and the removal of this post.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A slightly different issue, but EEng (talk · contribs) has also been behaving disruptively this evening at Murder of Jo Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, and Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I challenged their deletion of sourced content (here) and (here), I was accused of "owning" the articles (see here and here), and a dummy edit was even made to accuse me of adding paid for content [157]. I attempted to explain my reasons for reverting EEng both on their talk page and at Talk:Murder of Jo Cox, but was met with instant hostility and an apparent unwillingness to discuss the matter. Furthermore, EEng directed me to an essay it turns out he/she had written fairly recently, in what seems to be an attempt to justify their recent edits. While the essay itself seems sensible enough, essays are not policy, and I believe it was being used in this case as a means to an end. Also, by removing the content they chose to remove, EEng was violating the essay's general principle anyway. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Really? Those are snarky images, not personal attacks. ANI is full of them. You need to drop the stick. --Tarage (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing like a good pile-on to enliven a quiet Saturday night at ANI.

• The idea that an edit I made two days ago [158] to South Coast Air Basin (which Unscintillating last edited in 2011 (!) [159]) is evidence that I have "taken a recent interest in [Unscintillating]'s contribution history" is... well... paranoid?
• How in the world is this [160] a personal attack? (Not my best visual joke, I agree, but I do the best I can with the material available.)
• A sex act? You mean this [161]?? Will you get a grip??? Apparently you either know little of sex acts, or little of differential equations, or both.
• As for This is Paul, I think his statement that I don't believe... that you actually intended to improve this article pretty much tells you what you need to know.

EEng 01:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I see neither disruptive behavior nor any hint of harassment. I see only EEng's usual visual humor, and a quite reasonable article edit. There is nothing in this complaint to be acted on, because there's no "there" there. I would recommend gentle mini-trouts to Unscintillating and This is Paul, and the prompt closing of this section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• EEng is an otherwise productive editor well known for his strange sense of humor and his propensity for posting ironic images in various discussions. This is harmless in my opinion, and those who do not appreciate his jokes can ignore them. It takes two (or more) to engage in a pissing contest, and when one breaks out, wise people step back and zip it. Taking the petty squabble to ANI accomplishes nothing in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• All I see here is whinging by Unscintillating and This is Paul. Humor is permitted in discussions, especially when they are pushed to stupid lengths like the one at WT:TPG. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Editing on a couple of beers is never wise, as things tend to seem more important than they actually are. In the case of the article I mentioned, the ball is rolling to sort out some issues it has. However, having not encountered this editor before, I will say I find the posting of such images quite offensive, particularly the Soap suds enema gag. Not funny. Humour is permitted, but in this particular case it overstepped the mark, and he/she ought to be censured for it. This is Paul (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Whinging. Being offended is not a right or a privilege that lets one remove other people's comments. If it's that bad, then remove yourself from the situation or get over it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Under normal circumstances I would be among those wanting EEng to not post material unrelated to the guideline, but nothing has been normal at WT:Talk page guidelines for several weeks. Severe dead-horse beating (not by anyone mentioned here) has been going on and on and on, with no sign of light other than EEng's offbeat responses. EEng is not the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq, you are a gentleman and a scholar. EEng 02:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is merely a clash of personalities between a puerile jokester and a humourless prude. Nothing for ANI to get involved with. Reyk _YO! 02:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A very balanced evaluation. Your kind words have been duly entered in the Great Register [162]. EEng 02:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who lost a close relative to colorectal cancer a couple of years ago I found the use of the image in the context that it was used in that discussion very distressing. I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. I'm just a guy who happened to click on it, so I hope you're not going to accuse me of whinging as well. 86.185.226.26 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would do, oh so random IP showing up on ANI. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Their first and only edit, too. You don't think it could be an editor with an account hiding behind a... nah, couldn't be, never happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Is that something like the giant warehouse in Indiana Jones. Because the Ark of the Covenant and the corpse of a Roswell alien seem like fun company. Reyk _YO! 02:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• I guess I found the real Brain Police. A little humor does not hurt anybody; one positive of the encyclopedia is it attracts unique personalities. As long as it isn't disruptive, I prefer having a good-natured jokester around instead of a joyless and dried-up everyman. It is time to close this thread and move on.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The real issue is User:Unscintillating is displaying the same WP:CLUElessness I've seen displayed in discussions I've encountered them on. Recently they accused me of swearing at MfD for linking to development hell Legacypac (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• EEng's colon cleansing depiction was brilliant...now wondering what he can do for serial commas. Oh, and if it's decided that BMK's suggestion for mini-trouts won't do the trick, there's always the  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, the pressure... Best I can come up with on the spur of the moment is this serial comma killer. EEng 04:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• As for the quality of EEng's edits to Murder of Jo Cox, "dramatic improvement" is the phrase that comes to my mind. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• And hey, since This is Paul brought it up, I'm gonna put a plug in here for my essay WP:Principle of some astonishment. I'm somewhat vain about it. EEng 04:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Move to close with no action: I have no idea what Unscintillating is getting at with the long, drawn out discussion of EEng lacking any history of editing WT:TPG, what the editor interaction utility shows, or for that matter how many edits EEng has to ANI. With all that irrelevant commentary stripped away, this complaint reduces to "EEng attempted to infuse humor into a guideline discussion. I demand administrative action to remedy this." This is not what ANI is for, and it would be inappropriate for an administrator to take action here. Even if EEng's attempts at humor were disruptive, I am not sure this complaint would even belong here. In short, the complaint at hand is entirely without merit, and this matter should be closed with no action. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:56, 10 September 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.

76.111.59.21

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.

---

This IP was blocked for edit warring to remove mention of the Steven Universe character "Amethyst" from articles, they have not engaged in any discussion of their edits and are now at it again [163] [164] [165] [166]. I am starting to wonder if an indef block is necessary. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: Thanks for the heads-up. Widr just blocked for two weeks. Indefinite blocks for IPs are usually reserved for special cases, not routine policy violations like this one (see Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses for more info). I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:59, 10 September 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.

81.156.137.36

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 has been constantly edit warring at many pages for the last eight hours. I have already reported this IP on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and reported this user as a sockpuppet at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.132.168.137 but there hasn't been much response. I really need an emergency solution as the situation is continuing to escalate and is edit warring on every page. I have given numerous warnings and told all the rules and gave this IP a chance to re-read the three revert rule policy many times but nothing seems to be working at the moment. An urgent block need to come into place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pkbwcgs: already blocked prior to this report -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I didn't know this IP was blocked as I continued to type up a message to this IP and it took more time than usual. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:21, 10 September 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 deletion of pages. Also, I feel like I am being bullied on Wikipedia

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 feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If articles are bad, our solution is almost never to delete them; our solution is to improve them. Such discussions take place on the talk pages of the articles themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 11 September 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:SwisterTwister

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am tracking this editor for a while and I think It's time to stop him before he deletes whole WP without even reading the subject of deletion. We lost too many good contributors already. This guy don't respect the rules, delete articles without even reading, get's into topic he is not familiar with. Analytic will show that AFD's by this user are always closed with the support of the same group of contributors. Further analysis confirms the pattern which means the decision is made prior to discussion making a discussion pointless. This is highest level of abuse of the authority. (Worth checking other cases, this is well known abuser. Do a google search, Check the blogs, forums and threads to discover how many great authors we lost). Although he tries to help against vandalism, this user gone to far and become vandal himself. There is absolutely no way to create article if this decide not to let you. Even in the debates, serving modified informations and relaying to same group of few editors to back him up. History of known vandalism and ban discussion. There is no way to do anything on WP unless you establish good personal relation with this user. The informations presented by this person in debates are heavy modified in manipulative way. Requires further investigation by other contributors in order that we remain objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsenough (talk • contribs) 23:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC) An SPA with three edits. This one, one adding SwisterTwister to AIV, and one creating Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/SwisterTwister ‎. Meters (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Would somebody kindly direct this troll to the exit - I'd do it myself but I don't have my admin tools with me right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Indeffed as clearly not here to improve the encyclopaedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

MRSTEALYOURBEEOTCH

Now blocked, nac SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

MRSTEALYOURBEEOTCH (talk · contribs) I have 2 concerns about this editor, if the part of the username "BEEOCH" is meant to sound like "bitch" and weather they are a sock, as I recall seeing a user named something along the lines of mrstealyourgirlfriend. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If you believe the username is a blatant violation of the username policy, report it to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Suggest softblock for borderline username violation (WP:DISRUPTNAME isn't clear if humorous use of euphemism is technically as bad as unambiguous profanity -- "indirectly" implies that the username "YOUAREASTOOPIDBEEOTCH" would be would be inappropriate, but a username that implies "I'm gonna steal your girlfriend" with a profane word for the latter is a bit more ambiguous).

As for whether it's a sock, normally User:Tornado Chaser would have to have clearer evidence (mrstealyourgirlfriend (talk · contribs) doesn't exist) to request a CU, and failing that I don't think there's much to be done.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Y'all just report that kind of shit at AIV with a brief explanation. VAU block applied. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

User:Evan.Slater

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.

---

Evan.Slater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned, multiple times, by myself and other editors concerning their edits, more specifically to The X Factor (UK series 14), by adding unsourced and/or poorly sourced content to the article, concerning pop entertainer Cheryl. User is clearly not here to edit constructively to the encyclopedia, and there is no reliable source to back their claims, which they have been citing since the beginning of the month, among adding in other speculation, based on tabloid reports and online rumours. I've reported the user, multiple times, to the vandalism noticeboard; each time it is removed as "stale," etc. Clearly, this user is not here to be a helpful member of the community, and there needs to be repercussions to their continued actions. livelikemusic talk! 17:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

ONLY READ IF INVOLVED IN MY RECENT ACTIVITY ON WIKIPEDIA: I understand that I have been vandalising Wikipedia on The X Factor (UK series 14) page concerning pop singer and entertainer Cheryl and making edits that she will be appearing on the show and I have left this unsourced. Clearly it would look like I am not here to use Wikipedia constructively but I honestly say I need to learn how to use Wikipedia and edit articles properly, such as in this case I need to learn how to source any content I edit on the References page and make sure I source this content properly. I understand I should not edit anything if I don't know what I am doing and make sure I get to know how to use Wikipedia if I was to edit a Wikipedia page. I apologise for any trouble that I may have caused to Wikipedia or anyone involved in reporting my content I have added to Wikipedia that has been considered as vandalising Wikipedia and I promise that I have learned this for the future if I was to edit a page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.Slater (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Even though I'm not involved in your recent activity on Wikipedia, I read this and I have a question. Why did you only respond to that person's concerns now? Even though it's strange that they left you a final warning, then another final warning, then a third final warning, you still should have replied to them at some point in the last week. 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:8490:BE75:32E0:9C30 (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Evan.Slater's editing pattern backs up their explanation of test editing, and I think it's a pretty big leap here to suggest they're not competent to edit or deliberately vandalizing - they're just inexperienced. I've left advice on Evan.Slater's talk page to use their sandbox for test editing and ask if they have questions. That's all that's called for here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 11 September 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:Bacardi379 and United Lands Central Security Agency

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 created several articles that I nominated for AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Lands Central Security Agency. Bacardi379 has repeatedly removed AFD tags [167][168] and has repeatedly moved the pages into the Draft: namespace [169] [170] in attempts to evade the AFD process [171][172].

What is the proper course of action here? --Rschen7754 23:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD as delete because these appear to be hoaxes (i.e. there are no Google hits for them whatsoever except Wikipedia and mirrors, which given that they're supposedly major companies, roads etc. is extremely unlikely). In the vanishingly small possbility that they're not, they - for the same reason - don't pass GNG anyway, so we've lost nothing. It's very weird, though; the same user has created road articles previously that aren't hoaxes (I've just been checking a few) so I don't know what's going on there at all. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking care of it. --Rschen7754 00:03, 10 September 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.

Niagara (painter and singer)

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.

---

• Niagara (painter and singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can I get a revdel here? [173] I don't know if this unsourced material is correct but assume that the subject of this BLP doesn't want it published. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not suitable for revdel, which generally shouldn't be requested here for matters like this, and almost certainly shouldn't be removed from the article. The name has been reliably reported in multiple sources, including the Washington Post. I'm not quite sure that "birth name" is quite the right term, but it's stated that way in many apparently reliable sources. The subject's wishes wouldn't be relevant in this context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The material was added without a source citation, which is a violation of BLP policy. I see you have re-added it, but only sourced part of it. I have again removed the unsourced material. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a revdel candidate, in any event. GAB^gab 17:47, 9 September 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:FF-UK

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 this morning to start a discussion with FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on his talk page[174] regarding some civility issues that have emerged in an active RM discussion, but I see the user reverted my message without comment.[175] The user's posts in the discussion ([176][177], etc.) have been veering into the personal and disruptive, something that I and others have already pointed out in the discussion.[178][179][180] If the user is unwilling to engage on the subject of this behavior, what's a reasonable next step? Thanks for any advice/assistance. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I would suggest just keeping calm and ignoring it. With an attitude like that he's going to slip up and get swatted by an admin at some point. His shouting won't carry much weight for whoever closes the move discussion, but there are enough valid arguments on his side that I suspect the whole thing will be closed as no consensus. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• FF-UK has made 21 edits to the move discussion, divided into actually more responses — I make it 31 — responding to and arguing heatedly with pretty much everybody. That's pretty disruptive in itself. I started to count the number of exclamation marks also, and the number of times they accused people of dishonesty, but I got lost. It's the kind of behaviour that discourages other editors, and I have given FF-UK a strong warning. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC).
• Update: A closer has now marked the Amazon discussion as {{closing}} while a result is considered — but I see that despite instructions asking participants not edit the discussion, User:FF-UK just posted yet another comment. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:52, 9 September 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 disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar

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.

---

Bhagirathkamaliya has just returned from a second block for vandalim/disruptive editing at Kathi Darbar, and is already edit-warring there to include the same unreferenced content as before. The editor has had numerous warnings, but has never acknowldeged one – and indeed has never posted on a talk-page – so there doesn't seem to be much hope that a polite explanation will cause any change in behaviour. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Escalated the block to 1 week; but I think by this point indefinite is probably appropriate also. Alex Shih^Talk 15:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This particular one may be linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kjp007 but I don't have time to look deep now. Also, when it comes to these caste pages, it'd be helpful if a {{Uw-castewarning}} is left for the user along with the first warning as it'd avoid the need for ANI etc. —SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Considering this (User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhaldhadhal) and this (User:Bhagirathkamaliya), yeah maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• DoRD, do you see anything with your special CU glasses that I don't? You ran it on that master before... Drmies (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not impossible that they're related, but except for being located in the same geographic area, they don't match technically. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:26, 6 September 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: 36.72.55.141

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

He seems to be messing with dates, should I revert the rest of the changes? —JJB^ers 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably, I just haven't the time to check all the "edits". Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted them all where they hadn't already been reverted. Regarding a block, the user is long gone now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. David J Johnson (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

He hasn't gone away, still meddling with dates, so I've blocked for 31 hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Odd "<" editing

Over the past few days I've run across many instances of someone replacing all the left brackets (<) on a page with the unicode characters for the symbol: & l t ; . (Apologies; can't get it to show up correctly here without spacing.) This results in broken refs, messed up punctuation, and sometimes a pretty unreadable page.

Examples can be seen at Triple bond and Peshawar cricket team.

This always comes from an anonymous user, and every time that I've checked, it has been that account's only edit. A large proportion of the pages seem to be on Indian topics, but I don't know what percentage of wiki articles fall into that category, so maybe that means nothing.

The character replaced is almost always <, occasionally &, and once >. Also, very rarely (maybe 2 in 50 times), an edit summary is given, such as recently at Shani Prabhava.

I'd love any insight as to why I keep seeing this. (And if this is not the proper place to report this, please correct me - this is not my area at all.) Let me know if there's any other info I can provide that would be useful. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk)

I'm not sure there is much that can be done at the moment. The two examples you gave were by two different IPs. Thanks for the fixes though. WP:AIV is available should the problem become more widespread. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

In only one of your examples was the edit "that account's only edit". Two of the IPs already had multiple edits to a variety of articles. If you examine each accounts' other edits, you can see whether they were constructive or not, and if not, revert the edit(s). If there is a pattern, then warn the user (see WP:WARN for some sample templates), and if necessary, report them at WP:AIV. If there is continuing vandalism to a single article by multiple IPs or an IP-hopper, then you can request semi-protection of the article at WP:RFPP. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've seen this, too. I chalked it up to some browser bug. I suppose it could be vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the replies. My fault, re the "only edit" thing - although I gave poor examples here, I assure you the vast majority of this has been from IPs with only one edit. This is what led me to think it isn't vandalism, but an error/bug/mystery. No big deal, just thought I should report it. Jessicapierce (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem sounds like the character entities fooling either the user's browser or the internal (Wikimedia server) wikitext parser into not recognizing what were intended as html-like formatting tags, sort of like a grammatical hypercorrection. I'd AGF and communicate to the person that they're causing problems rather than solving them. If it gets out of hand, an edit filter could intercept the changes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have also seen this multiple times while on RC patrol. Tornado chaser (talk)

Edit warring on United Firefighters Union of Australia

On United Firefighters Union of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The following three seem to be edit warring over a wp:content dispute. The article needs to be PP at the least.

• Firefighter83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atriskboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NSWFire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jim1138 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

Atriskboy and myself are not edit warring with each other, it appears we are both reacting to constant vandalism of that page by user NSWFire and a static IP address user - FF83 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) The article certainly needs a few extra eyes, since it appears to be a massive fustercluck. No comment on who's right and/or wrong. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello. It's rich to call what I have done vandalism. It is true that the UFU is currently carrying a $200,000 + debt arising from the split of all members bar three, and it is documented in their annual report. They have also received much formal criticism for their continued defence of members who have been found untrustworthy. However, I am happy to split these subjects off into a second page - perhaps called "United Fire Fighters Union Australia - Controversies" to keep both the peace and to avoid accusations of white washing. NSWFire (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that Firefighter83 has now deleted the subject matter previously agreed to be factual, branding it opinion. I strongly urge that it is resumed, as it relates closely to the history of the current publicity. NSWFire (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be no such agreement, as I stated in my edit, your addition reads as an opinion piece or press release and therefore is not an appropriate addtion to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefighter83 (talk • contribs) 04:42, September 7, 2017 (UTC)

Full-protected indefinitely, and then re-full-protected for three days because indefinite was a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content until the edit warring issue is settled. Both Firefighter83 [181] and NSWFire [182] have continued the edit war after being given edit warring warnings. Both appear to have broken 3RR after the warning. I support edit warring blocks for both. Atriskboy stopped editing the article after the warning and did not break 3RR, but was edit warring on this article and the related Country Fire Authority. All 3 very likely have a conflict of interest in this issue. .

There is alsonow an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NSWFire concerning a new account User: Ethicschecker that was created eight minutes after the edit warring notice and has now edited the article. [183] [184].

Country Fire Authority is part of this mess too, with a number of SPAs in common, and several other SPAs active. Meters (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm generally not fond of handing out blocks when several people have been warring at one or two pages; easier to protect the page, and if the users are otherwise good editors, it avoids creating their block logs. If you think that blocks would be better than protections here, please explain your reasoning. Of course, disruptive sockpuppetry, if proven, is good reason for sustained blocks on all accounts involved. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know that blocks will solve this any more than temporary full protection will (unless an admin actually makes a definitive edit). The parties do not seem to be able to work this out. 3rr violations after an edit warring warning are a definite bright line issue, and this ANI was an edit warring thread so that was my take. My comment was made at almost the same time as the protection. I would have looked at things differently if the article had already been protected.

We have a big mess of SPA and apparent COI editors who have taken their union infighting to the Wikipedia pages. Meters (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Motorsporteditor

After receiving a final warning for removing an AfD template from Josh Tibbetts (diff 1), stating that they would be blocked if they did it again, they did exactly that, removing the AfD template from Sam Cartwright (diff 2). I've already reported this to AIV, where I think this report correctly belongs, but was declined first on erroneous and then procedural grounds (diff 3, diff 4). Additionally, this editor has engaged in other general disruption (diff 5, diff 6) and made personal attacks against User:PlyrStar93 and myself (diff 7, diff 8). I think a brief block is called for here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Contant Stalking by User:Sir Sputnik

The AfD template I removed from Josh Tibbetts and Sam Cartwright said I could do so once some changes were made. I made those changes and removed the tags yet User:Sir Sputnik continued to try and remove the page and remove my account. I feel like a temporary block should be put in place for bullying. User:Motorsportbattles 7:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Motorsportbattles, AfD templates say no such thing. As a matter of fact, they say directly the opposite. You may be new here, but the editors frequenting this board are not. That is an entirely disingenuous defense. Care to try again? John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Motorsportbattles: You wouldn't be having this problem if you weren't repeatedly creating articles on footballers who fail our notability guideline. If you don't stop doing this, you may eventually find yourself back here with a request for a new article topic ban, which I would fully endorse – at the moment you're just wasting other editors time by forcing people to go through the AfD process. Number 57 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked. The name seems to be Motorsporteditor, as per Sir Sputnik's report, not Motorsportbattles, which they confusingly sign as. The timestamp is wrong too.[185] Motorsporteditor, please sign using four tildes, (~~~~), then it'll come out right. People need to be able to get to your page by clicking on your signature, and to ping you — the pings by John from Idegon and Number 57, won't have reached you, simply because you signed the wrong name. Anyway, I think Motorsporteditor needs a block right now for disruptive editing such as this, and I've given them 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
• This user is not at all new. They have been here since 2014 and much of their editing has been unconstructive.Tvx1 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a SPA

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) a singularly focused account, who has already been blocked once for edit warring is being highly disruptive. 2017 Portland train attack, three insertions in under an hour linking a known extremist and killer to Patriot Prayer, thus by extension to the person Joey Gibson, in my opinion this is a blp violation. PP is never mentioned without the founder of the group being named, I had edited the article so mention of the group, along with Gibson appeared in the same line as Gibson denouncing Christian, along with the fact that Christian was ejected from the rally, so as to avoid any guilt by association, this has been reverted twice [186][187], without being marked as reverts. Gilmore appears to be here to right great wrongs, and for Christ's sake, someone tell him an article on a right wing free speech group does not have to mention Donald Trump in every fecking paragraph, he is bloody obsessed with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

And here is his latest edit "One month prior to the stabbing, Christian appeared at the Patriot Prayer right-wing "March for Free Speech" in Portland's Montavilla Park sponsored by Patriot Prayer" Yup PP is now mention thrice in the same para. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoever responds to this should also look at Talk:Patriot Prayer for context on both the reporter and reported, here. Funcrunch (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please note the section on (Jeremy) Christian. Please, also do a quick internet search of "Patriot Prayer Jeremy Christian" and see the number of legitimate news articles that link them, thankyou.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I can report that others returned the hyper-links between the Patriot Prayer page and the Portland Train Attack. I do hope the editor will leave them alone this time, for pulling them apart, is to pull both out of context of Portland, Oregon from April until June of 2017. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/06/jeremy_christians_vocabulary_a.htmlC. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Apparent behavioral problems at Holly Neher and related pages

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.

---

See also: Talk:Holly Neher and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Neher.

What started as a disagreement has turned for the worse. In a nutshell, User:SchroCat and User:Paulmcdonald (me) have a disagreement on the notability of an article. I have attempted to support my viewpoint with policy, guidelines, and essays to support argumentation. I have found the response to be heated, profane, and otherwise unproductive.

Examples:

• adding arguemnts to the OldProdFull template (entering an argument into historical record after the fact)
• revert per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hidden text as inappropriate use of hidden text--using it as a talk page
• profanity in the article history is unproductive
• profanity in the talk page
• removal of sources and content material to the AFD discussion
• forceful comments against media appears to be using Wikipedia to "prove a point" about the state of journalism in society
• continued statements of personal point of view and repeating arguments already made

It seems that the more polite I attempt to be, the harsher the response I receive. Please review and advise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Paul. I am sorry that you have run into these problems. It appears to be consensus that established editors can be as potty-mouthed as they wish, and are unlikely to suffer any sort of sanctions. Is it important to you that potty-mouthed editors should suffer some form of sanction? If so, then you probably need to head to a different website.

Another place that you can learn about the consensus on civility is User talk:Drmies, where another editor is currently making a similar case. What has been recommended is that the editor should just go and edit some other article somewhere. MPS1992 (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Query wouldn't that simply be Wikipedia:WikiBullying??--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Personally I think this is just a storm in a teacup and the fate of the article is going to be resolved at the AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think this is about the fate of the article? If someone's on the "winning" side of an AFD, they can be as uncivil as they like?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Profanity =/= incivility. Especially when it's not directed at an editor; the text that was there was fucking awful is directed squarely at what you'd written, and not at you. I've looked at that talk page, calling you obtuse was the only touch of incivility on there and that line was struck by Schrocat himself. I'll lightly recommend that you drop the stick here as this is going nowhere and is unlikely to go anywhere (let alone anywhere productive) anytime soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with User:SchroCat that stuffing the article full of marginal sources wherever they'll fit has left the prose... extremely inelegant to say the least. Reyk _YO! 06:07, 12 September 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.

Rangeblock request - Clark County School District - 169.241.60.0/24

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.

---

• Range contribs since August 1, 2017 - [188]

This range belongs to the Clark County School District ([189]) and has been a source of disruption recently. Examples: [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196]

The vandalism appears to have started around the time school traditionally starts in the US, so I suspect this is just some young whippersnappers. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I see nothing good flowing out of this range over the last three weeks and two or three school blocks already in place for individual IP addresses. School block applied for six months. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Having now checked a selection of diffs in this range going back to October 2015, seeing virtually nothing constructive and noting several previous rangeblocks, I've extended the school block to one year. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 12 September 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:ElKevbo UMass Boston page edit summaries & talk page edits: civility warning 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.

---

I am requesting that a Wikipedia administrator on the noticeboard issue User:ElKevbo a civility warning for his recent exchange with myself on both the talk page and the edit summaries for his recent edits to the University of Massachusetts Boston page. Jajhill (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Holy wall of text Batman! There are 801 citations! Acroterion (talk) 04:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• An ANI thread for an edit summary What an intellectually empty answer? Really??? EEng 04:48, 13 September 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:Two.25.45.251

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

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

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

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

Comment This user specifically stated they are not Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. I have only limited experience with the LTA we call "best known for ip", but what experience I have shows that this person routinely attempts to actively deceive administrators during unblock requests. If this user is indeed "best known for ip", they are doing the same here, too. This is said without prejudice; I cannot tell if they are the same person. Is it not the case that this user could make a statement to Arbcom via email? If it is not the case, I would endorse unblocking a talk page solely for this purpose. I believe Yngvadottir is not suggesting we lift the community ban, and so I make no statement on this point. --Yamla (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Even if they aren't the BKFIP, they are clearly admitting to evading a ban here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=798719426 Keep them blocked. --Tarage (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Yngvadottir is not disputing block evasion. I haven't looked at the case, but it seems the question raised is whether, assuming the editor was "only" uncivil but not harmful to articles, the response was proportionate, and whether evasion of an unjust block would be excusable. (As I said, I haven't looked at the case; I'm only trying to clarify for myself and others what the argument is about.) Samsara 01:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If this user wishes to make a statement on the Winhunter case, they can do so by email to arbcom-l, or they can email me and I will copy it to the case page as a clerk action (assuming that the content is not in violation of policy). GoldenRing (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as one of the many, many, many blocking admins. BKFIP's song and dance has for years been that their "good" edits ought to wholly excuse any possible misbehaviour, of which there has been plenty (see WP:BKFIP, I'm not going to repeat the laundry list). So this account claims they're not the same person, well so have nearly every one of the IPs listed on the LTA page, and the editor has admitted in the past that our list is "massively incomplete". They've behaved in exactly the same manner as BKFIP: angrily objecting to a series of "good" edits being reverted and then edit warring into a block, resuming the edit war when the block expired, lashing out at anyone who didn't agree with their "good edits" justification, and swearing they're not BKFIP. I have zero doubt that they are, and BKFIP is an editor who WP:TE and WP:CIR could have been written about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That being said, I fully agree that we throw around the term "vandal" much too liberally. BKFIP has never been a vandal as far as I'm aware, but certainly a tendentious and disruptive user. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• What are you opposing?? The question was "can you suggest a way forward"? So you're opposing any solution? NE Ent 01:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposing the proposal to offer this editor clemency. I also don't believe there's any way forward that doesn't force administrators to tiptoe around an editor who admittedly has no interest in even trying to get along with others and collaborate, and has a history of causing major drama whenever there's any hint of a need to discuss their edits. I'll add more below in a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• I had an interaction with BKFIP a couple months ago, and based on that, I am not terribly hopeful that we can find a solution here besides the ongoing on whack-a-mole with their IPs. I found that they were completely unwilling to admit that there was even a possibility they were wrong. Even if they were correct about the content issue (and I do not believe they were in this case) such an attitude makes communication very difficult. So mark me down as pessimistic. That said, if we wanted a way forward: with sockpuppeteers, we generally ask for them to sit out a block of a certain length, and then appeal, upon which the standard offer usually includes an unblock and some restrictions. We could try the same thing here; ask them to sit out a six month block; appeal thereafter; if they don't use IPs in the meanwhile, unblock them, but place a 1RR restriction and possibly a civility restriction (yeah, I know those work too well). I can't really come up with something easier than that. Vanamonde (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(Responding to remarks and suggestions above, not just to Vanamonde93, but parking here for neatness' sake.) A 1RR has been tried in the past. As to civility restrictions, as I say, my impression is he is much more civil now, but the community's patience has been exhausted and a ban is a ban. I'm not asking for it to be reversed because I'm clearly way outside the community norm here; I believe I was the only one arguing against it in the ban discussion, which I linked above. But WP:CIR?? This editor writes excellent English and his edits are overwhelmingly good, including demonstrating a grasp of science I wish I had. (Not all, however. I've been on the receiving end of a tongue-lashing from him myself for not agreeing with all his edits.) He very much had a point about knee-jerk reverts—until he was banned. There may be developments in the case of which I'm unaware; in particular, I see an Arb making statements about him baiting admins into blocking him, and I have no idea how his editing history of which I'm aware can be construed that way. What I see is someone with a laudable addiction to improving the encyclopedia and expertise we can use, who has a terrible temper and sufficient mastery of the language to sling stinging insults, but who has (in my estimation) come increasingly close to keeping a civil tongue in his head in accordance with community norms, and has also worked with us by finally registering an account, for which I think we should afford him some modicum of allowance. Maybe the suggestion to e-mail Arbcom is a start, thanks. Maybe the arbs will also allow the statement he already made to be restored? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly a common community antipattern of the form "make reasonable good-faith edit, get reverted/templated/blocked/otherwise mistreated, overreact with incivility, get written off as a disruptive vandal". This case may have started out that way, but I don't think it's a great fit for that pattern anymore; it now looks a lot more like "make edit likely to prompt inappropriate reverting/templating/blocking/etc and use that overreaction as an excuse to stir up drama". But arbcom does have a way of making everything look worse. If you think you have a better way to approach this situation, I certainly won't stand in the way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Paging @Amortias: who protected the page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The page(s) were protected as no case has been opened and as such no evidence should be being submitted, if and when the case is officially opened and evidence is required this may be included (it being presented by a blocked user may need to be dicsussed seperatley) until then the pages should be left as the are. If the committee wish to have this included they are free to include it themselves as tehy can overrule any clerk action, anyone who wishes to have the information added to the page is free to request it from the clerks or lodge a a request to the committee via e-mail or at the arbitration noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 12:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That removal also included two sections added by IPs, some or all of which material has now been added to my talk page. It doesn't belong there and goes into things I know nothing about, because I don't know anything about the other banned user mentioned in the removal edit summary, although I did at one point know a lot about the BKFIP case. It's only his statement, under the registered account I named in the section header, that I would ask to be restored at some point. At what point is also above my pay grade. @Opabinia regalis: thanks, and maybe you do know when it should be added. I suspect you are confusing two cases, but as I say, I may have missed more recent developments. I would also not have removed talk page access; venting after a block is expected; but since he's banned, he's not going to get unblocked, so presumably that factored into Huon's decision. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've had very limited wiki-time lately, so I wouldn't be surprised if I were confused (but if you're thinking of Vote X, no, I've got those two straight. I think. ;) The case is in suspended animation for the time being, so my preference would be to leave it alone for now and sort it out later if and when WinHunter returns to participate. For the time being, the post is in the history and not going anywhere. In any case, if some sort of alternative resolution is going to be reached here, I'd rather see it emphasize improved future behavior than focus on past events. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for Two.25.45.251

Anyway, we have actually made some significant progress, as this user has now created an account. That means they are accountable in one place, rather than jumping IPs and evading blocks (which is the real problem). So, taking Yngvadottir and NE Ent's suggesting of "a way forward", I am going to propose the following solution:

1. Unblock Two.25.45.251 - call it an amnesty. This means drawing a line in the stand and saying "right, we're starting again". I'm going to forget about any blocks I have pulled; conversely nobody else is to bring them up. It's in the past - forget about it.
2. All edits go on that account - no IPs, no sockpuppetry
3. If they post to a noticeboard saying "Admin 'x' lied about 'a', 'b' and 'c'" - leave it. Rebuke it factually if you really need to say anything.
4. Anyone who is not absolutely sure of what's vandalism and what's good-faith, read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism first, and recuse totally from taking action
5. If you have to revert this editor, leave an edit summary that can be defended later (eg: "see note on talk page [link]", "consensus from other articles is that this is okay for these circumstances, sorry, will discuss on talk in a minute") - NO TWINKLE, NO HUGGLE
6. Any genuine cases of edit warring that are grievances by other editors, go to WP:AN3 and follow the usual procedures
7. Do NOT block without consensus here

The basic idea behind this is that I feel admins as a whole need to set an example and show we are unscrupulously fair and beyond suspicion. Quite frankly, I feel like bloody well indef blocking the next person who makes an incorrect vandalism call on this user, but I suppose we've got to AGF that people think they're doing the right thing even when they're not.

If we don't do something like this, this dispute is never going to end - ever. How many years has it been going on? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Yngvadottir, Ent, Ritchie. I agree with most of what Ritchie has to say, maybe all of it. How long? At least since 2011. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oh dear. This is the first edit to that editor's talk page not left by a bot. I have never seen an IP address that started with the word "Two". The warning was placed by an account which had been active for three days, allegedly; it is funny how Two.25.45.251 just keeps putting fingers on sore spots, wittingly or unwittingly. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I never said that the username looks like an IP address. The AntiSpoof MediaWiki extension won't allow you to create accounts without any letters (at least in the version I use on my wiki). Therefore, someone could attempt to register an account and deceive it to look like an IP address by simply changing one of the numbers to spell out that number in words. For users who aren't very familiar with how accounts work, that account could look like an IP address at first glance. Also, I must note that when my actions were mentioned at ANI, I was not notified and was only aware after going though the inappropriate reverts by Drmies of my good-faith edits. Pillowfluffyhead (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pillowfluffyhead, you have had an account for four days. You need a lot more clue before you start getting involved in issuing warnings to anyone about anything. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, yes, please, Ritchie333. I hope it works. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose an unblock or clemency. Just within the past six weeks or so, this editor has:
  • Written this edit summary.
  • Denied being the Best Known For IP editor, including in the unblock request of the account I declined. I don't think there's any genuine doubt they are that banned editor, is there? In that case, we're all agreed they're a habitual liar.
  • Evaded the ban plus a block.

They could probably fly under the radar and improve grammar if they were able to collaborate with others. What gives them away, time and again, is their superiority complex (I'm not using that lightly, but as Vanamonde93 said above, they are incapable of considering that they might be wrong, and simultaneously they belittle and insult all who disagree with them; not admitting that they're always perfectly right must be a sign of inferior intelligence) and their inability to work with others or deal with opposition in a civil way. I see no indication of a change, no commitment to a change, no recognition that their past behaviour was problematic, not even a recognition that their past behaviour was theirs. Do we need copyeditors this badly that we're willing to subject editors to this kind of abuse? Huon (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Huon, the principal difference now (as I think Berean Hunter mentioned on the last ANI thread) is that his employer knows about his history on WP, and as I understand it has "had a word". That's why he's now finally got an account, and it also gives me some confidence that if he tries socking or IP block evading again, he's going to end up getting his employer collateral blocked again, and get another disciplinary action. I apologise for being vague about this as the full context of this is stuff I've been told in private by BH, but I do believe circumstances are now different. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: The employer knows about what history, exactly? The one Two.25.45.251 denies is theirs? Do you find that claim credible? If circumstances are now different, surely Two.25.45.251 has acknowledged that their past conduct was inappropriate and committed to a change in conduct towards other editors? I seem to have missed that; all I saw was "I have only ever made good edits" and "I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". Is that inspiring confidence in you that we'll see a change? (And to Boing! said Zebedee: Yes, it is fair to hold them to those statements of 2011 when there's no indication of a change of mind or a change of attitude. Did you see any of that? Where?) What the proposal will do is make it much more difficult to enforce civility standards down the line; if some unwitting admin were to block them unilaterally for their next piece of viciousness, I foresee them not addressing their own conduct but claiming the mantle of victimhood.

It's generally agreed that being right is not an excuse for edit warring, because edit warring is still disruptive even when you're right. I don't think being right should be any more of an excuse for this pattern of "viciousness", for exactly the same reason. People who are unable to comply with the fourth of our pillars should be just as unwelcome as those who can't comply with the first or second. Huon (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps one could ask them if they have changed their views since 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

They deny being the same person and assert they only ever make good edits. Do you find those assertions credible? Should we ask them whether they have changed those views since September 3? Huon (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to email you with what I know about this user, but the general gist of it is "stop this or you will lose your job". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: And the solution is, instead of being happy that we finally might see the end of the disruption that has been going on for years, to enable him to continue with exactly the same behaviour, with no commitment to change and no acknowledgement of past issues, and instead to impose restrictions on everybody else? I'm sorry, but whether they threaten their job by continuing this conduct is their issue. To me this seems as if we were more concerned about the consequences their actions might bring upon themselves than about the problems they bring to Wikipedia. I don't think we should let a disruptive editor hold themselves hostage in this way. I also note that both you and Boing! said Zebedee haven't answered my question. The user we're discussing here denies being the Best Known For IP. Do you find this assertion credible? Huon (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I was hoping we might get some sort of positive response from them in line with the efforts people are trying to make here - like a confirmation of identity, which would help square this account and the proposal here with the "boss knows what they've been doing" development. So I held off to see how they'd respond - and then I forgot. And now, to be honest, I think it's becoming moot. As NE Ent suggests below, it's looking like the community is going to reject this proposal, or if accepted it would be by such a fine margin that it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to abide by all of the suggestions. I'd hoped we could find some constructive way out of this mess rather than just keeping on playing whack-a-mole, especially as there are indications that they genuinely want to contribute constructively (It always pains me when I see good contributions removed just because they were made by a block evader), but I can see that's unlikely to happen now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I support the principles behind Ritchie's proposal; but I just do not see the justification in this case. Is this an editor so much of a net positive that we can cut them as much slack as is being proposed here? We have block evasion, incivility, edit-warring, and just plain being difficult. Now I'm willing to forgive some of that in the belief that by registering an account the user wishes to start afresh, in a sense. But Ritchie seems to be proposing to effectively place the community under some restrictions with respect to this editor, and apart from prohibiting sockpuppetry (which is prohibited anyway) allow them to do as they please. Now those restrictions are not bad ones, and really (apart from the point about twinkle) should apply everywhere. But I for one am not happy accepting them back without safeguards to prevent this from degenerating again. In particular, I would want a 1RR restriction. Also, it may be a good idea to restrict them from following up an article talk discussion with diatribes on user talks; that is specific, and enforceable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand this train of thought. The point isn't "slack", it's figuring out the least-disruptive solution to the problem. And the result, hopefully, would be subjecting editors to less abuse. I admit that "no blocks except by consensus" thing sticks in my craw a little, because I can think of much more deserving editors who fell into that "get blocked for being rude about being unfairly blocked" trap and never got an offer like that. I guess trying something like that is an investment in the future good-but-volatile editors who might benefit from a similar plan.... Well, I still think the first post is an AGF overdose and this is a lulz problem, not a poor self-control problem, but I can hope to be wrong. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Opabinia regalis: Maybe "slack" is the wrong word to use; but heck, if you were rude and disruptive tomorrow, another admin could block you without coming here first. BKFIP has been remarkably disruptive in the past, but but we need consensus, on ANI, before blocking them? I can't get behind that. My proposal was very specific: if we think they can contribute positively, unblock them, and restrict them from the worst of their previous behavior: edit-warring, and posting angry messages on user talk pages. 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently written. I feel we need a 1RR restriction, but that's not a deal-breaker for me: what is is placing certain restrictions on anybody who deals with them, as I've said above. Strike points 6 and 7, and I could support. Vanamonde (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• I support Ritchie333's proposal, as I see it as offering a decent hope for a disruption-free future. The thing about Two's employer knowing about the problems does offer us something that is different this time too. Also, with an account, it will be clear that there will be plenty of eyes on Two's editing if an unblock is granted, and equally clear that a return to old habits will almost certainly result in an effectively permanent indef block. We potentially have something good to gain here, for relatively low risk. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  PS: I've added a "Proposal" subheading above, to make it easier for people to locate what is actually being proposed - I hope Ritchie333 doesn't mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I made a bolded "oppose" comment further up the main thread but since there's an actual proposal here now, restating my opposition. I applaud the effort to find a way forward but there are many parts of this I don't like, and so this comment is long. For one, I don't know why this editor and not any of the other dozens of banned users who "make good edits" but don't work well with others. I'm fine with amnesty for editors who show that they recognize why they were blocked and make an indication they'll try to avoid those actions in the future, that's what we have the standard offer for. This editor has not done so at all, in fact they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [197]). Furthermore, with the nature of their IP-hopping and "good edits" they could get away with evading this ban for a very long time if they didn't always fall back into the same pattern of drama whenever anyone reverts them for anything, and as such I don't have any faith that trying to limit them to an account is going to be of any use at all, even if we assume they've changed their mind about their stated intention to evade any block they disagree with (which you'd think, and they've demonstrated, is every block). BKFIP has made these sorts of assurances before to escape a block, and has broken their promise each and every time. Even so, I'm all for second* chances and would probably support this or at least stay out of the way, but this proposal also puts unusual restrictions on every editor who interacts with BKF, requiring everyone else to jump through hoops to avoid crossing an editor with a short fuse and long history of antisocial behaviour. Sometimes our fellow editors get things wrong, like calling constructive edits vandalism or mistreating IPs - we can deal with those on a case-by-case basis and we should, but part of editing here is being able to deal with people disagreeing with you from time to time, especially when you're right. BKFIP won't or can't, and it's not in the project's interest to make special rules for editors who are this dysfunctional, no matter how good their edits are. I'm also not pleased about the message this sends that if you persistently evade a community ban long enough that it just goes away.

If there's a way forward for this editor, it starts with them respecting their ban and sitting out for six months, and then demonstrating that they have any intention at all to avoid the situations that have led to their past blocks. I don't believe that creating an account that's as close to an IP address as you can technically make demonstrates any intention at all for that to be their only account going forward, and besides, creating an account has never been required and isn't now. It's not just the ban evasion that's a problem: the core of it is the user's negative overreactions at the drop of any hint of trouble that needs to be addressed, and they could have been doing that just as well as a dynamic IP over the years. Instead of looking to improve, we have yet another round of the aggressive edit summaries and revert warring that led the latest IP to be blocked, all of which occurred before they were identified as BKFIP (it originally had nothing to do with ban evasion); had they responded more appropriately it's likely nobody would have ever made the connection. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Re "they've outright said they're going to keep right on with everything that gets them blocked and banned because they think they get what they want anyway (paraphrasing from [198])" - is it really fair to condemn someone for the rest of their Wikipedia existence for something they said back in 2011? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing that the editor has done in the intervening six years suggests that their statement is any less true now than when they wrote it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, of course not. NE Ent 02:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you're missing what I'm getting at. There are two sides to this; you've covered the edit warring and incivility, but every time he has complained about being reverted for "vandalism", the other party has also been in the wrong - that's why we've got an Arbcom case in cold storage right now. So, my plan is to take the "incorrect vandalism revert" part out of the equation, and see what we're left with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, but that's just not even close to the entirety of the problem. BKF doesn't just respond poorly when they're mistakenly called out for vandalism, they respond poorly whenever anyone challenges them over anything at all. Take for example this discussion: this resulted from BKF editing a section to remove what they perceived as copyvio, while one editor disagreed with removing some important parts from the article's lede and another disagreed that the existing text was copyvio in the first place. All three editors had valid concerns, but rather than discuss and come to an agreement, BKF angrily insisted that their opinion was infallible and insulted the other editors' intelligence until their IP was blocked. In that instance the other two editors tried to address BKF's concerns, nobody called BKF a vandal, nobody reverted an IP just because it was an IP, it was just a simple content dispute that set BKF into meltdown mode. And yeah, that was two years ago, but once again I've seen nothing to suggest BKF has tried to improve at all, and the latest incident suggests to me that the pattern is ongoing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Procedural Oppose I think that Arbcom and/or the WMF need to be directly involved here. Also, we're discussing an editor who has stated in writing they aren't BKFIP (I'm unsure whether they are claiming to be the same user as 2.25.45.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Power~enwiki (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I search for laughter in life. "Procedural Oppose" is pretty damn good. Thanks. -- Begoon 06:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rather like "unscrupulously fair" in the first post. That made me laugh. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Ritchie's proposal entirely, and thanks to Yngvadottir for bringing this here. Let's look forwards rather than pick at scabs. If this fails it'll be easy enough to fix, but if we don't even try, then I'm disappointed in "us". -- Begoon 01:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well quite. If he reverts to type he'll be indeffed soon enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

And if he doesn't then we gain an experienced, valuable editor. Honestly, this seems like a "no brainer" to me, and an opportunity to put stuff behind us, where it belongs. There's literally nothing to lose, and lots to potentially gain. I'd be very proud of "us" if we took this no-risk "chance" here, however it turns out, and somewhat disappointed if we don't. -- Begoon 05:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Contra Yngadottir (who I admire very much anyway), I thought BKA was a terrible editor from the get-go, making lots of what could be called good-faith edits under AGF, but which made the articles worse. I'll leave the policy questions to the wikilawyers but I think the project is better off without BKA. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You could always just log in and tell us who you are, but I'm aware of the deep irony that suggestion might invoke in this case. -- Begoon 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose His edits aren't always an improvement, yet he reacts the same way with abuse and hostility. The excuse that people revert him "because he's an IP" is hogwash, its an excuse that he was given and he has latched onto with great gusto. In reality he's simply trolling and any decent edits that get made are purely incidental. Really if you've ever been unfortunate enough to come across one of his none improvements you wouldn't be thinking of unblocking this guy. WCM_email 09:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

And BTW they've been behaving like this a lot longer than 2011, I first came across this editor back in 2007. WCM_email 09:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

10 years ago? Go figure. There's a certain sort of dedication there, for good or ill. -- Begoon 10:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

He likes to create drama, I bet they're loving the attention. WCM_email 16:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I have to take issue with your assessment. It is possible that I am indded assuming too much good faith, as Opabinia regalis suggests, but I'm not the only one who has spoken up here and elsewhere saying that the majority of this person's edits are good. Perhaps you are confusing him with another IP editor, or perhaps you're thinking of one particular emphasis he's had with which you disagree, such as regarding "best known for" as POV? Otherwise, I find your assessment puzzling and think the imputation of bad motives to him inappropriate. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm definitely thinking of this IP editor and comments like this Censored, Censored Censored You dopy little Censored, "wee curry monster". I've seen several threads started by him at ANI, which I would definitely class as trolling (but of course they're difficult to go back and find due to his IP hopping). I would just like an environment where you can discuss edits in a reasonable manner, without some foul mouthed troll gobbing off when someone has the temerity to disagree with him. I am really bemused that you think this guy is somehow an asset to the community, can you point to some particularly brilliant article he's penned? A little copy editing is not worth the grief and drama this editor creates. WCM_email 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, 4 f-bombs and a "retard"? And all 2011? That's not very bad at all, and it's very old news. As I said above, he's genuinely been more civil in recent years. I'd say you're about quits with the "foul-mouthed troll" above, but I admit I'm at the extreme edge here, and I admit, my mother wouldn't like him. But this is a writing collaboration, not a vicarage tea or even a business. Yes, I do think his editing is a net positive. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not just the f-bomb, in 10 years of editing, I've seen some stupidity but never felt the need to refer to another editor as a dopey fucking cunt. Funnily enough not even my old rugby team would consider that sort of language acceptable. So do I take it from your remarks you don't feel that editors can expect discussions to be civil? It certainly seems that way. And I don't think his editing is a net positive, I think its been a time sink for years. WCM_email 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As I say, it's regrettable he called you a fuck and a retard in the last link there, but you're going pretty far back for your examples and he stopped cold with the "c-word", to my knowledge? I think there's a bit of a false dichotomy here. I don't agree 100% with all his edits; he's told me off for not doing so; I don't think he's our best copyeditor, but he's damned useful to the encyclopedia (I see more editors elsewhere in this thread judging his edits as generally good than sharing your opinion of them, and I'm particularly concerned because he has a good knowledge of science, and I for one don't), and I don't define incivility by lists of words that you're not supposed to say on TV. To my mind, calling an editor like this a troll is as bad as dropping an f-bomb, and snideness is vastly underestimated in its effect on the editing environment. But I'm not the person to decide this. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens, I'd forgotten the guy admitted to getting his kicks abusing other editors I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely". WCM_email 17:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not what they said: I get more satisfaction out of responding viciously than I would out of responding politely, and the end result is exactly the same. It's very, very depressing to see how reasonable, sensible people like yourself became the minority. Believe me, if you were the majority, I would not be viciously slagging off anyone. (Emphasis mine.) NE Ent 17:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion continues, but slowly, and meanwhile the editor has talk page access revoked and therefore can't even make a statement to be reported here. That seems unfair to me. May I propose restoring talk-page access as a bit of WP:ROPE or a gesture of good faith on our own parts? Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oppose WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, I've seen this editor break every promise they've ever made to be civil to other editors. WCM_email 17:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

While the thought behind the proposal is good, I'm neither for it nor against it because it won't matter.

• Within Wikipedia, there is a group, I'll use the term Chaotic Good loosely, who believe the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any edits that improve it should be allowed to stand rather than systemically reverted because of who made them. (This becomes especially sticky when the edit fixed a WP:BLP problem.)
• There is also a Lawful Good group who believes the most important thing is the encyclopedia. Therefore, any individual whose actions continually impair the function of the project needs to be firmly discouraged, regardless of any positive edits they may make.
• Neither good has a plurality and both have logically reasonable positions. Of course the two views are incompatible, so we muddle along on a case by case basis.

The are two possible outcomes to this discussion:

• The consensus is against (current trend). Well, that's the status quo the Wikipedia community can argue about for another decade.
• The proposal passes -- the idea that we can get the entire community to abide by 3, 4 and 5 is unsupported by historical evidence, and what happens when it doesn't?? Does that then excuse BKFIP's subsequent behavior? Secondly, it's only a matter of time before there in an accusation of sockpuppetry -- it's hardly a unique phrase e.g.[199] and there are like a billion English speakers. The idea that every writer is a special unique snowflake that can be identified by any minor edit is ludicrous, and of course there's the possibility of a agent provocateur troll deciding to stir up trouble. Regardless of whether BKFIP follows the proposed rules, someone will decide they're not.

The sensible thing to do would be to take the WP:RBI approach -- as that page points out "In the past we have neatly categorized vandals and constructed shrines for them on Wikipedia." Well, the past is present: I mean the guy even has their own shortcut WP:BKFIP. We should leave the good edits, revert the bad, short term block any IP with excessively poor behavior. Delete the shrine. And take some Wikidryl. NE Ent 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Croatoan21 – disruptive editing part 3

cc @Euryalus, Dennis Brown:

Disappointingly, following two blocks (report 1, report 2) for disruptive editing Croatoan21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still at it: 1, 2. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated disruptive editing by Franciscus14, no communication on their part

Franciscus14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has received a multitude of warnings for their disruptive edits. Most of these edits have involved unexplained removal of sourced content and replacing profile images by poorer ones, both mostly (or entirely even) at BLP / footballer articles. At the same time, there has been a striking lack of communication on their part: as far as I can tell, they have never responded to any warning and they never use edit summaries. Two hours ago, they again removed sourced content without any explanation: link. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the user doesn't know they have a talkpage. Blocked for a week, in the hope that they'll discover it. Bishonen | talk 19:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC).

I experienced someone like this before. Has anyone tired to ping them? But you know what? In looking at their contribution history, this editor makes all their edits on mobile phone without any edit summaries. I am not sure if all the features work on your mobile phone (e.g. alerts, notifications). And I think that personal talk pages are limited so he may not be aware of all the warnings other editors have put in. If the disruptive editing persists, then it would be best to do a longer block.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ejbaluyot

Ejbaluyot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive960#User:Ejbaluyot creating nonsense articles, is continuing to add nonsense to articles, such as this and this. It is clear that this editor does not have the English-language skills to contribute to the English Wikipedia, and their edits are creating work for other users, so I am requesting a WP:COMPETENCE block. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, as the editor was becoming a time sink and competence is required to constructively edit Wikipedia. Editor may appeal the block as per normal, and I would welcome their contributions in the future should their quality of edits improve -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 11:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Might want to delete their usrpage as well. It's a fake article in and of itself and is filled with a bunch of self-promotional nonsense. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, CSDed. Widefox; talk 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree too on block due to competence concerns. Seems like edits are amateurishly written.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

User making legal threats + personal attacks against me over talk page discussion

I would like to alert necessary admins to the talk page discussion at [200]. It is a controversial topic, but cautiously, I started a discussion to gauge consensus about a given change and have not edited the article in question. Despite this, a certain user, User:Delors1991, has got extremely and unnecessarily offended at my proposition and has bombarded me with personal attacks, threats and general uncivil behaviour in both the discussion itself and as an act of vandalism to my user page [201] [202] [203], which also contains a threat to "reveal my real identity"--TF92 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense - no threat was made to TF92 to "reveal [his] real identity". A request was made to him for him to reveal his real identity himself, Wikipedia not being intended to be a shelter or vehicle for the vilest defamation against members and supporters of a party which obtained 3.9 million votes in the 2015 General Election and whose view on Brexit was supported by 17.4 million people in the 2016 Referendum. Here is the link: [204] with the words "Please provide your real life identity so the normal remedies may be availed of - you evidently intend to continue your extreme and appalling abuse."

Therefore, this editor's claim that a threat was made to reveal his real identity is demonstrated to be false. It is probably either a deliberate distortion or the result of his inability to properly construe English. In each case, he shouldn't be doing this. If he thinks it is acceptable to publicly smear supporters of a respectable political party, including myself, as extremists, he is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delors1991 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Delors1991 notified (which is required). Also, are there unnecessary admins?? Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Delors1991 responded to a talk page proposal to change the description of UKIP from right wing to "far right" in a highly combative fashion, including several implied legal threats and an unacceptable demand that TF92 out themselves. In my opinion, this behavior is out of line and calls for a block unless Delors1991 withdraws those remarks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delors1991 blocked by Orangemike. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

FYI on 77.46.164.179

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.

---

77.46.164.179 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is engaging in some minor harassment on other language wikis: [205][206]

In itself, a couple of edits are nothing to get excited about, but it happened right after I made a series of edits like these;[207][208][209][210] so I am posting a report here so we can keep an eye on this IP. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

These are just apparent nonsenses and defamations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.81.205 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: 93.86.81.205 attempted to delete the above report and is currently blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

...and more harassment, which was reverted and the user globally blocked before I even knew it happened.[211][212][213]][214] Again, all of this is just FYI; there is nothing here that needs any admin action.

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You have to watch out for those apparent nonsenses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you are looking into wrong direction. If you think that behind so called Operahome and all that is prof. Igor Janev you are mislead. In a few threads on Macedonian Wikipedia he answered that he is not interested in English Wikipedia whatsoever, neither English Wikipedia for him is relevant in any possible way. Somewhere else in Macedonian media he also said that US as a country is culturally underdeveloped, primitive, and so on... Nevertheless, he appears to be relevant person for Macedonian and Balkan history as an architect of Macedonian Constitutional Name recognition by more than 130 nations members of the UN, and also for 20 scholarly text books and more than 100 scientific articles in the field(s) of International Law and International Relations, as you can verify on Google scholar. Its my understanding that if you decided not to have here article on him, he wouldn't mind at all.109.93.70.21 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 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.

Ernio48: compromised 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.

---

A recent edit by above made me to suspect that Ernio48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) might not have total control of his account based off this obvious vandalism at Church of England: diff. As Ernio has 7400 edits since 2011 and no block log, I doubt he is a troll, also his talk page is not filled with rage and warnings against and behavior. I do see a lot of blocked users on his TP who might have a bone to pick with and would try to login to his account to try and ruin his credibility. My attempt to contact him regarding the above edit has not yet been responded to, thought he account has been active past its posting. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I did a quick glance-though with his contributions, edit summaries, etc - they all seem consistent. This looks like an instance where we should wait and see what the user does next before we act. A one-off weird edit to an article, while yeah it's concerning... it's not making huge alarm bells go off - especially given that legitimate edits have happened since. I'm going to keep eyes on and wait for now; there very well might be a reasonable explanation but a compromised account seems unlikely. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it's compromised. He reverted the article to a specific revision (check the edit summary), and it looks like he didn't realize it was vandalized. A trick I use sometimes is to scan the size of the article (85,440 bytes) to find if there's an revision of the exact same size. Once I locate the most likely revisions, I compare them. In this case, the vandalism was added by a blocked editor in this edit. Ernio48 must have unintentionally re-added it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate beat me to it - I just now found that diff and was going to follow-up with the same thing :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Heyyyy, fun fact: Oshwah is an idiot. User makes vandalism to the article, and I friggin' protect the page like a NINNY and didn't realize that he had added it back! Yay for me! :-D ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I knew something was off…with my brain. Thanks for looking into this, I'll go apologise to him now. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Writ Keeper blocks Oshwah while bot runs amok. Note AfD in progress in background.

Beach and ocean beyond the pail.

–EEng

I propose Oshwah be blocked for personal attacks on Oshwah.

• Support as proposer. EEng 01:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Done per SNOW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness! A ninny!!!??? He called himself that? That's just beyond the pail. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Block extended by 4 seconds for making a malformed unblock request. GAB^gab 02:10, 13 September 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.

In Oshwah's stocking this Christmas.

–EEng

• Can... can I have an ice cream cone? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng - ...Meh. Close enough to an ice cream cone, I guess :-). Oshwah eats it ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely the intent of this message could not be to create additional linebreaks to make the page look prettier.

I mean, that couldn't really be the case, right?

Actually, I'll cop to it.

Oh crap, I need one more.

Mow!

AlexEng^(TALK) 06:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}} would probably have worked, too - but would have been nowhere near as funny - I prefer your solution. -- Begoon 06:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind giving Oshwah an Ice cream cone. Except the fact that it would be melted before I gave it to him... *cough *cough* Oshwah *cough* *cough* Yoshi24517^Chat _{On Wikibreak} 17:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Emergency Community Ban for 118 alex

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.

---

Short background: long term troll/vandal, vandalises Singapore Buses, creates sockpuppets, claims he is a sock of 118 alex.

See the SPI page and the archives for how much time this guy wastes. Hence I would like to propose a ban and to contact the ISP to block the user. His ISP is mostly run by Singtel. 103.27.223.112 (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

These requests should be made on WP:AN I think. Socking since 26 June 2017 is not enough for a community ban. Capitals00 (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You have 2 edits. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 12 September 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 user incivility

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.

---

109.173.72.198 wishing users will get cancer in their edit summary (diff). -- ( Radiphus ) 10:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Radiphus: Please e-mail one of the admins in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and ask them to revdel the edit summary. Thanks. Linguist^unEins^uno 10:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Revision history and edit summary deleted. Alex Shih^Talk 11:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How would an edit summary get cancer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:55, 13 September 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.

Remove talk page access for User:CivilRightsandWrongs

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.

---

• Special:Diff/800524581

Suspected sockpuppet user CivilRightsandWrongs (talk · contribs) made another threatening edit on his talk page alongside with an unblock template. It's probably becoming obvious that this user is WP:NOTHERE, so can someone revoke his talk page access? And also, if applicable, remove the edit that I've linked to? Thanks. Instantmatter49 (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked and purely disruptive material deleted. Alex Shih^Talk 04:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Appreciated it. Instantmatter49 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 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.

Posting emergencies to ANI

Replacing the original thread here with a reminder that credible threats of [self-]harm should be reported immediately by emailing emergencywikimedia.org. Further instructions can be found at WP:EMERGENCY. Details of emergencies should never be posted to highly-visible noticeboards such as this one. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Name change

Can someone please post the decline reason for my name change to my talk page? I can't get into the email account that I used to sign up for Wikipedia so I can't see the email. Ya Mans (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ya Mans: Are you sure your request has been declined? Did you follow the instructions for changing your username? I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: I changed it a few days ago but I want to change it again. Do I have to wait a certain amount of days before I change it again? Ya Mans (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How about if this is that last time you change your name, OK? EEng 15:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Aight. Ya Mans (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Implied legal threat, edit warring, content blanking SPA

• Polysci1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jimmy Dore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Title says it all. User repeatedly blanking content on article claiming "defamatory content". Likely same as IP editor who did the same earlier. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that material is defamatory is not a legal threat, as discussed at WP:NLT. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: I'm having trouble locating that discussion. Can you point me to it? I've seen people treat claims as bordering on legal threats, often citing DOLT. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

See the section Defamation where it says "A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat". One could argue over whether an assertion that material is defamatory is a discussion of libel, but I think it's close enough. Having been on the wrong end of legal threats in the past I think I know where most admins would draw the line, and I don't think these comments reach the required threshold. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polysci1977 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You should raise your concerns at WP:BLP/N; the way you are handling things at the moment is likely to end badly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Polysci1977 has already been warned about edit warring while logged off it seems, and was also advised to either take the content dispute to WP:BLPN or Talk:Jimmy Dore, where similar discussion has been ongoing. The page will be semi-protected for one week for the time being to allow discussions to take place. WP:NOTHERE should be applicable if the same kind of disruptive editing behaviour continues. Alex Shih^Talk 07:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed; my comment was more aimed at lurkers: I learned a lot by reading BLP/N and AN/I for a while. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of the original post (which did not qualify as a legal threat), this new "You are posting defamatory content, not sure how to handle this, but I have to pursue this now and will keep doing so until concluded" appears to be reasonably interpretable as one. After warnings. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 

• No activity by this user for a few days. Requesting this be closed for now unless someone agrees with SMcCandlish that a legal threat was made in that last remark. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of User:Thetruth16

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.

---

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

• Ferdinand Marcos
• Benigno Aquino Jr.
• Corazon Aquino
• Jabidah massacre
• Conjugal dictatorship
• Martial law in the Philippines
• History of the Philippines (1965–86)
• Philippine presidential election, 1986
• People Power Revolution

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

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

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

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

Let me tackle the issues raised point-by-point:

• It was Marcos who said that the opposition party collaborated with the enemy when they questioned his records in fighting the Japanese during WWII: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-23/news/mn-28079_1_war-record. Benigno Aquino Sr., Ninoy's father, and José P. Laurel, VP candidate Laurel's father, were leaders of the KALIBAPI that supported Japan during WWII, as you can see in the KALIBAPI article.
• I didn't state that as a matter of fact, I said some believed and I cited this Manila Standard editorial: http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015. It would be better if the contribution is attributed to the author, still this warrants rewriting and not deletion.
• In the article Rashid Lucman, you can see that Rashid Lucman issued the passport named Marcial Bonifacio and the same person founded the Muslim separatist group. Rashid Lucman's son himself said that his father sent young Filipino Muslims to train in Malaysia and these guerillas formed part of the MNLF: http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao
• I addressed the issue on Aquino's father being a Japanese collaborator during World War II above. And there was a picture of him being arrested by the Americans which you deleted /censored. Ninoy's links with the communist rebels are supported by multiple verifiable sources and definitely not my point of view: http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/ and http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included

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

@Thetruth16: Do not post in the middle of other people's posts, post after their post. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

These two diffs linked to by OP are concerning because their edit summaries bear little to no relation to the actual changes. That tactic is common enough among WP:TEND editors that I believe there should be a section added to that page on it. @WayKurat: Did you mean to include a different link in your second point? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: The second point covers this edit. Thetruth16 reverted back his edits on September 2016 then added the "Linda Kapunan" information with it. Also, take note of the sources he gave on this edit. It is all self-published. He replaced it with a "more reliable" source after I have pointed it to him. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

All the sources I gave above supporting my existing contribution are definitely not self-published as per WP:RS. If they are, I wouldn't mind part of my contribution being deleted. But what you did was you deleted everything that I edited even if there are multiple reliable sources cited and this violates Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Thetruth16 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thetruth, please stop saying that I am "censoring" your edits. I am pointing out that since you have started editing here, all of the Marcos-related articles' neutrality are now tilting "pro-Marcos". Please also stop shielding yourself with Wikipedia's policies. A lot of editors have already pointing out that your edits are mostly pro-Marcos and anti-Aquino and you are using Wikipedia policies on reliable sources to protect your contributions. Let other editors and administrators check the neutrality of your edits. -WayKurat (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

WayKurat I added the contribution stating that Ninoy Aquino has links with the communist / muslim insurgents and this is properly cited with reliable sources, does it really matter if this edit is pro-marcos or anti-aquino? And isn't deleting this well-cited contribution considered censorship? Following your argument, contributions citing reliable sources should be deleted/censored if they don't speak in favor of Ninoy Aquino since they tilt the article to become "pro-Marcos"? @Ian.thomson: Thetruth16 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, Thetruth16 has been editing the above articles in the original post in a skewed manner, especially in phrasing to favor Ferdinand Marcos and to demonize Marcos's opponents. He has been a disruptive editor and has been blocked twice. His edits have been highly disruptive to the mentioned articles. It looks like he is at it again at the Benigno Aquino Jr. article, demonizing Aquino who was one of the stuanchest opponents of Marcos and is considered a hero in his home country. -Object404 (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that we sweep these reliable sources under the rug just because they might "demonize" Ninoy Aquino, just like what WayKurat did by deleting well-sourced content without discussing his deletions at all? Does these sources from national newspapers and TV all deserved to be censored and not mentioned in Wikipedia? http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/virtual-reality-by-tony-lopez/141677/setting-the-record-straight-on-edsa-1.html%7Caccessdate=August%2030,%202015, http://www.philstar.com/letters-editor/604043/will-noynoy-aquino-be-hero-muslims-mindanao, http://www.manilatimes.net/the-ninoy-aquino-i-knew/31974/, http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/198820/news/specialreports/ninoy-networked-with-everyone-reds-included.

And deleting without discussing or even trying to rewrite just like what WayKurat did isn't disruptive? And restoring the deletion is? Talk about double standards. How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Also, Your comment pertains to your previous experience which has already been dealt with and not in this current issue.Thetruth16 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You keep inserting content which is off-topic and unrelated to the article & its subject, such as "Malaysia had financed a secessionist movement in Muslim Mindanao led by the Moro National Liberation Front to undermine Philippine interests." specifically to make the subject look bad. -Object404 (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It was for context, since earlier in the article different sources have mentioned that Ninoy was supportive of Malaysia's cause in its dispute with the Philippines on Sabah. I do understand your point that it can be deleted to make the paragraph more coherent. Also, I can see though that you have retained the more than 90% of what WayKurat has deleted/censored. Thetruth16 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thetruth is more than ready for a NOTHERE block, and this discussion is not giving me any reason to think otherwise. WayKurat, thank you for bringing it here; I know these reports are time consuming, but they are worth it, if only for the record they establish. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: as you can see above, all the 4 examples WayKurat brought up have been refuted. So you think that these 4 should have been censored/deleted? If they have to be re-written in an more neutral tone, other editors should be rewriting them over time consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. However, some of the facts that WayKurat has been trying to censor/delete are hard to refute, like Aquino's links with the communist insurgents which can be verified by multiple sources throughout the article. Thetruth16 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah no I didn't see that. The problem isn't even so much the factuality, partial or complete, of some of the things you thrown in--it's the verbosity, the edit warring, the synthesis, the POV. And the talk page behavior. Did I mention the edit warring? Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Per WP:EW, I understand that reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. And the policy in question here is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. Also, I would have preferred to discuss content dispute in the talk page Talk:Benigno Aquino, Jr.; however, as you can see, WayKurat failed to respond on the points I raised in the talk page (and even above), focused on conduct and instead of content contrary to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, resorted to mass deletions (even if everything is consistent with WP:RS) and finally reported me to admin while he himself is violating Wikipedia rules. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thetruth16, I did not respond to your disputes to stop this edit war and as I mentioned above, let the other admins and editors here check the neutrality of your edits. As I have noticed on your editing style, you keep on adding this kind of information and if someone challenges you about the neutrality of these, you will give them the headache to check every edit you make if its neutral.

From day one, that is what you are doing here, even since you have adding questionable information anonymously using an IP address. And to think to some point last year that you used blogs and self-published sources that are also being used by those pro-Marcos Facebook pages and websites, that already set the tone of your editing style. To reiterate what Object404 was saying, your edits villify Marcoses opponents and at the same time you glorify their achievements. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to let other editors check the the contributions you deem non-neutral, then why did you Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete. You could have created a discussion in the talk page to gain consensus, which you didn't. Also, it's moot and academic if I used sources that didn't comply with WP:RS last year - it wasn't aware of the guidelines then, and these all sources have all been removed. I don't even know why you have to bring this up now that all the remaining contributions and sources very much comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Thetruth16 (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Drmies:. As of this moment, Thetruth16 is reverting back his version of the articles mentioned above, more than 24 hours after the his edits were removed. This somehow bypasses the WP:3RR rule. -WayKurat (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk about double standards? Didn't you WayKurat delete my edits more than 3x? Didn't you violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete? Just now Object404 did a review on my edits on Benigno Aquino Jr. and Philippine presidential election, 1986 and way over 90% of what I contributed that you've censored/deleted have been retained. Besides, all the 4 points you raised above have been more than adequately addressed.Thetruth16 (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not "retain" your edits, Thetruth16. I just haven't had much time to review the articles above nor edit them with which your biased edits have been very damaging to their form and are a big headache. -Object404 (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

"Headache" is a good word to use here. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Object404 Good thing that you understand this Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, which says that there is no need to immediately delete contribution (which are well-sourced, but you argue as non-neutral) that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time, unlike WayKurat who just deleted/censored everything that doesn't speak favorably of Aquino (including his links to the communists) even if they are from reputable sources. Just so WayKurat is aware of the relevant Wikipedia policy, I'll put them here verbatim just so he/she won't keep on violating it: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." and "Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Thetruth16 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• My suggestion is that any time an account is created with the word truth anywhere in it, that a separate shadow copy of the wiki be created just for them. Their edits will affect only that copy, and only they will see that copy, with their edits. They can edit away for years without bothering anyone, and without getting blocked. Everyone's happy. EEng 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• • Good idea. {{re|Thetruth16)) ""Especially contentious text" can be deleted if appropriate, you are wrong in thinking it is against policy, there is no policy forbidding that. Essays aren't policy. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Let him edit at Wikipilipinas, and join the hundreds of Wikipedia vandals that have been banned here. -WayKurat (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
      • So you can violate Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, censor and delete relevant and verifiable contributions without being questioned? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
        • No, so you won't tilt Wikipedia's neutrality and push whatever advocacy you have behind these edits. -WayKurat (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Noted, but don't forget that the text in question here are verifiable and are all from reliable sources. As you can see in the 4 examples above (and rebuttals), assertions and verifiable facts are being censored here just because they are not pro-Aquino. Did you see that the photo of Aquino's father being arrested by the Americans was deleted and links to the WWII Japanese collaborator party Kalibapi was also deleted just because it doesn't fit the 'good guy' narrative that WayKurat is trying to espouse? Thetruth16 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not the usage of WP:RS that's the problem with Thetruth16's editing, it's his style of editing and wording which is biased towards glorifying Marcos, making him look innocent and demonizing Marcos's opponents. -Object404 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You are shooting the messenger? So you could as well blame the reliable sources - editors in the national newspapers, photographers, and TV - for any revelation that makes Marcos looks innocent and that demonizes Marcos' opponents? And editing for the opposite - sources that demonizes Marcos is totally fine? It's the reliable sources' POV and factual revelations and not mine. And censoring everything, including Aquino's association with the communist rebels and his father's association with the Japanese in WWII, just like what WayKurat notwithstanding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete is the way to go? Thetruth16 (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but you keep Poisoning the well. An example of Thetruth16's biased wording style to make Marcos look good was his initial insistence that it was only communists and leftists who were the main targets of Human Rights Abuses during the regime of Ferdinand Marcos, when in fact thousands of innocent civilians were the victims of torture, murder, mutilations, etc. He even protested the usage of the word "innocent" to describe the innocent victims, which can be seen in the article's history logs - [215]. The section has since been sort of balanced. -Object404 (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, don't use this forum to argue and discuss about content, since this has already been dealt with. At that time, other editors questioned the word "innocent" as well, and one editor even said inTalk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence that the word innocent you inserted is "too vague, not to mention emotionally loaded." And when you said that you'll dig up more sources, those are the facts", RioHondo said that this statement itself is problematic. And weren't you told to mention the name of the authors whose opinions you presented in as facts in Human Rights Abuses? See, you accuse me of being biased, but many other editors here Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence get a sense that you yourself are biased. Thetruth16 (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying the thousands of falsely accused human rights victims were not innocent? -Object404 (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I never said that. Of the tens of thousands of accused victims, there are accused victims who are innocent and there are accused who are't innocent, nobody knows for sure. Many editors in Talk:Ferdinand_Marcos#Human_rights_abuses_section.3B_initial_sentence who got a wind of your editorial bias pointed out that it's wrong to say that all the accused are innocent which you stated in your contribution. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Given the facts stated above, the attitude towards other editors and editing style of this user, I propose that he will be topic banned from Ferdinand Marcos, the listed articles above and any other related articles. Please advise if you concur. Thanks. -WayKurat (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to make these Wikipedia articles one-sided and censor all WP:RS sources that editors like WayKurat and Object404 find contrary to their spin, then go ahead. They want to make it a black and white, good person or evil person, and nothing else in between. People can still learn through other means anyway if other Wikipedia editors insist to censor creditable sources per WP:RS that don't portray Marcos as evil, and Aquino as a saint. There'll be no discussion and everyone's life would be easier. People will never find out that Aquino was linked to communist rebels through Wikipedia and they'll instead find it through other reliable sources. Thetruth16 (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Go to Wikipilipinas instead. Make the Ferdinand Marcos articles there "as neutral as possible" as you interpret it. There are no rules there, no neutrality checking, and best of all, no admins or other editors will bother you posting your version of "the truth". -WayKurat (talk)

Very good. While I addressed all the issues on content you raised above Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Focus_on_content, now you are resorting to attacks. Thetruth16 (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have had some of the Marcos-related articles on my watchlist for a long time since noticing a problem at a noticeboard. The original problem was resolved but I have seen Thetruth16's enthusiastic slanting of a couple of articles over an extended period. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Thetruth16 has been quite a problematic editor. -Object404 (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support I have witnessed Thetruth16's editing for a while. He tends to cherrypick details from a lot sources and rebuke other sources in order to slant the neutrality of the articles. Phthalocyan (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:DUE argues for the inclusion of significant viewpoints and facts from reliable sources. Prior to my contributions, the articles contain many non-objective sensationalized news slanted towards demonizing Marcos and glorifying his opponents (and they still do). Reliable sources, even if objective facts are presented, were censored, removed, or are deemed as 'Whitewashing', and there still is some conscious effort by many editors here to keep censoring these materials and do full reverts without objectively checking sentence-by-sentence or even attempting to rewrite contrary to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete . Thetruth16 (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
    • So this article should be written from the positive point of view then (well sourced of course}, and not include any of the views that the vast majority of editors share, just because one editor views him positively? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Not a fair comparison at all. Have you actually checked the sources? The sources I cited in these articles that other editors here are trying to censor are all mainstream national media sources like The Manila Times, Manila Standard, GMA Network (company), Rappler, and The Philippine Star. Thetruth16 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This user's actions definitely fall under WP:SPA and is therefore encouraged to expand his editing activity in improving the many other topics about the Philippines in need of care. —seav (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support This editor has made a point of whitewashing articles on this topic, and promoting a specific viewpoint. I rarely participate on this board, but this topic ban is warranted. Scr★pIron^IV 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If the specific viewpoint (and even facts cited) needs to be retained per WP:DUE should they also be censored? These viewpoints and facts all came from national media like The Manila Times, Manila Standard, GMA Network (company), Rappler, and The Philippine Star. Very easy to say that it's whitewashing if you don't go deeply and examine the facts and sources. Also, it's not as if there's only one viewpoint and I erased other viewpoints in the articles. Also, you probably can't say that it's the viewpoint of the minority when a significant number of Filipinos know the facts (and share the viewpoints) being censored, and in fact majority supported Marcos' burial as a hero [[216]]. Thetruth16 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Put an end to this. I wouldn't mind Drmies's NOTHERE block proposal either, mind you. Kudos due to WayKurat for their detailed breakdown; as someone who has put up with far too much of "You gave me all the details in a careful and balanced manner -- TLDR! BOOMERANG!", I feel the need to give credit where its due. (As an aside, does anyone else feel like "truth" should be added to that username blacklist that blocks out swears, or however it works these days?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:09, 14 September 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.

• Comment Sounds like you can't handle Thetruth. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment My thought too. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Oogles, CIR concerns

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.

---

16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Oogles is an oldtime editor, albeit with a limited set of articles he edits, and who hasn't edited much since 2015 until now. He recently resurfaced on The Devil's Advocate (1997 film)‎ (one of his old haunts) (Redacted). In removing referenced material, he begins with heated personal attacks [217] [218] showing a lack of understanding of what was written, or the chronology of the subjects. He then leaves two incoherent messages on my user talk to that effect, with a chilling header. [219] [220]

After User:Mavriksfan11 chimes in with a WP:3O, what follows is a torrent of incoherence and non-sequiturs from Oogles, in 11 posts all one after the other. After commenting on a grammatical/readability issue that was already resolved, non-sequitur #1: "Have at it, hackles" [221] Confuses ledes with paragraphs again, after having been advised of a difference: [222] Non-sequitur #2 on the identification of an evangelical character: "Granted, she did fuck Satan, I mean Milton, and had a kid" [223] Goes back to the already resolved issue again [224] and again [225] Followed by this incoherence: [226]

After the 3O is implemented, he edit wars to undo it [227] . This is followed by the second torrent of seven bizarre posts. Noting the possibility of ANI should 3O fail, he responds with non-sequitur #3: "Not the article, so no need to edit details like that" [228] Confuses "lede" and "paragraph" again, violates WP:LEAD, and ignores 3O: [229] Non-sequitur #4: invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF referring to a plot point in a different film as analogous to a real-world lawsuit: [230] Non-sequitur #5: "Done with opening paragraph? If so, I'll go to next edit" [231] (talking to himself there?) Followed by this incoherence: "You can inform me on mine, if you want, I won't view it, but have fun with that. " [232]

Sadly, I think we have a clear-cut WP:CIR case here, or at least a WP:IDHT given the ignoring explanations, pointed-out guidelines and the 3O. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just want to point out that the legal threat you allege (using "legal action" as a header) seems to be referring to mention of legal actions in the article, why do you think it was a threat? Tornado chaser (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I thought it actually was a threat, just that the header, when I first saw it, was chilling and disturbing before I clicked on it and saw what it was. It just ties into the question of whether this user knows what words mean and what our policies are. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

View the actual edits. That's all. Oogles (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

(and I totally wouldn't sue Ribbit, why bother? That was notification of a revert, which I will NO LONGER do in the future. Oogles (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I did't say not to discuss reverts with other users (and I don't think Ribbet32said this either.) Ribbet32 was questioning your choice of words,not saying you shouldn't notify him of anything. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, I will no longer notify anyone of anything. I'll just edit appropriately. Can he stop reverting now? OR at least TALK after the FIRST revert? Talk is OK. Why this this film is unique for having the end in the opening - and legal information in it. Oogles (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No one said to stop notifying users of anything. Do you understand why this discussion was started? As for your defense View the actual edits these edits of yours (and especially this one) don't exactly justify the problematic communication highlighted in the diffs provided by Ribbet32. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So "especially this one" is where "defenses" (ie: legal defenses) weren't available to WB, INC? Source? Oogles (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no reason whatsoever to call the material you removed vandalism. This is not about article content (of which I'm not especially thrilled by either revision) but your behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The COMMENT part of the edit? That is fair on that. Is that what this is about? Oogles (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If someone raises WP:CIR concerns about you, it's generally a good idea to see what evidence they're providing and try to understand where they're coming from. You are not helping your case at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that. He was all happy about doing it. Does it matter if he "wins" - not really. I'm not trying to "help my case" That would be a case where this 1 movie now has legal information, and spoiler in the opening paragraph - which is bad :) Oogles (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia policy that spoilers are ok. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not even really a spoiler, just something revealed in the last 10 minutes. But what about legal info in lead? How bout we put all that (not true) things in the legal section, then talk about sources? HOWEVER - If the sole issue is claiming vandalism, with that specific word, in a comment - I am guilty of that. With no agenda. Oogles (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The NUMBER of edits seem to be an issue (where, does it really matter, when all inline and hasn't been edited in years?) Anyhoo, I've illustrated "Responsiveness" here too, as I did on the talk page for the edited articles. However, if issue is Ribbit is afraid of me or something lol, guy is on a crusade, and if he wins - I don't care! Oogles (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

99.9% of my edits are from IP, and those are never changed (and me and Oogles never edit same pages) I login when history is important to the edits. Oogles (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

My "crusade" is to expand Wikipedia film articles using references, and when a disagreement pops up, to discuss with the other editor. When someone covers their ears and then goes "DAH DAH DAH DAH DAH" and repeats the same arguments, it hinders the project. I explained my rationale for including information in the lede citing WP:LEAD [233]; you've repeatedly ignored that and repeatedly cited a non-existing rule that a lawsuit has to go all the way up to the Supreme Court to be worth mentioning in the "opening paragraph", regardless of real-world ramifications of a settled case. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

So, as a long time member (and contributor) to wiki - guess the logical thing is put the end of movies in the first paragraph, legal info and no big deal right? Lets just do that for every single movie. Seems logical. Oogles (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(The above reply is the actual first time I heard him respond to it) Do you have a settlement letter? explaining the exact details of cash transfer? And it wasn't the supreme court. Oogles (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, dude, this all belongs on the talk page for the article where I'm sure, we could resolve things, -- or, whatever the fuck this is, you can delete me too -- Don't give a fuck if you're successful on that, either, as, most of my edits from work or when VPN or whatever (again, not on the same article, I have no sockpuppets) I login, because history is important. Oogles (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you insist on improper formatting? (I fixed it) Tornado chaser (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm personally rooting that Ribbit wins. Just cause it's so terribly funny.

Oh also: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use Template:ANI-notice to do so.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (for pages) and Example user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (for editors) may be helpful.

Um, Oogles, why did you post that unsigned boilerplate notice [234]? You know I notified you immediately. [235] Ribbet32 (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's what it was? Thought the tags messed it up, did anyone think it was NOT from me?, under my username for the edit?Oogles (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Really, you shouldn't have me editing a frequently edited thread like this. BTW, I'll still contribute :P In donation and 99.99% of edits. (Mostly grammer) Which I spelled wrong. Oogles (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The end result is I guess every movie needs the the last 10 minutes revealed in opening paragraph and legal info all in there. Seems like the best place for it, right? Not the legal section. (Note, I won't be doing that, a hope is that editors keep Wiki reliable) Oogles (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• While I agree there are some WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:EDITWAR issues to address in Oogles's behavior, I think Ribbet32's "appears to have suffered a complete mental breakdown" WP:ASPERSIONS clearly warrant a WP:BOOMERANG in addition to, and completely severable from, actions (if any) taken with regard to Oogles. Nasty speculation about other people's brains is about the worst WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF transgression there is. I also agree with Tornado_chaser that interpreting an edit summary of "legal action", pertaining to article content about a legal action, as some kind of legal threat is unreasonable. Frankly, it's ridiculous WP:DRAMA-mongering. ANI does not exist for editors to tone-police each other in nit-picky, subjective, "I wish I'd gotten a trigger warning"-style ways that seem to have more to do with the complainant's own feelings and or inferences than anyone's intent or implications. ANI is also not a free-for-all playground for demonizing other editors' mentalities. Similarly, WP:Competence is required is something we refer to for "is this editor able to get along and do they have sufficient writing and English-language experience to even help out here?" determinations; it is not a "is this person smart or sane enough for our liking?" page. If you cite CIR in reference to someone, you should make clear you mean the former, but here the complainant actually intends the latter and is being very pointed about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What he said. User:Ribbet32, please remove your comments on another user's mental health. GoldenRing (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like I already explained what I meant by "chilling", but fine, redacted. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with it, as well. We can have a "discussion", first - before to this - really wasting everyones time - extreme. Oogles (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about CIR due to confusing comments like the one above. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with GoldenRing's comment - and SMcCandlish. More clear? Don't agree there was an editwar, (I can't hear you was after the fact) Oogles (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm also more than happy to provide ammunition for someone on a crusade (Note NONE of this is about actual edits to the actual article). So just explain, what ammunition you want, for this case. I'll do my very best to provide it. Oogles (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

(Note* Provide it to action against me, just cause that's funny) ;) Oogles (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess, under the reason sited, I could through poop at my monitor, then post a picture of it. But, I'm not really *that* interested in providing that ammunition. Oogles (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What is it you want an admin to do? so far this seems like a content dispute that turned into 2 users criticizing each other, ANI is not the place for content disputes, and in a content dispute you discuss content, you don't just keep criticizing the other person. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

What do *I* want an admin to do? Nothing is fine by me - ask the person who started it. Oogles (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like consensus has shifted to this being a mere "content dispute": personal attacks, edit warring against consensus, and editing beyond your language ability be damned. Someone might as well close this. Trout me if you like. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

That was uneventful. Oogles (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean there is nothing for an admin to do, I was saying that ANI is a place to ask for admins to look into things or take action (or argue that an admin shouldn't take action against you), not just to argue endlessly (and do try do discuss things in a more constructive way than "keep criticizing me cause it's funny" or "I could throw poop at my monitor"). as for what (if any)action admins should take against who, thats up to the admins. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, they should get to adminin' already. Oogles (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm done, the actual edits was evidence enough - I get the mistake now - getting Ribbit's hackles up. Who then "threatened" me with all kinds of actions. So, take your action, I'll not reply on THIS particular thread anymore. Oogles (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems he's been busy on CIR. Just saying. Alright Now is time for admin to take admin actions. (or not) Oogles (talk) 20:35, 12 September 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.

WP:ASPERSIONS in miscellany for deletion

Closing this with no action before it escalates any more. This thread is directly related to this huge thread at WP:AN which was just closed yesterday, in which the closing admin (Primefac) noted and endorsed a consensus among administrators for amnesty for previous actions directly related to that dispute, in the interest of moving on. The actions identified here are directly related to that dispute, and so I view this as covered by that amnesty. This close may be read as "the past is the past, treat your fellow editors with respect from now on."

I also wish to remind participants here that WP:STALK and WP:STALKING are deprecated shortcuts and are not to be used. See the text of the soft redirects for details.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

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

---

User:Legacypac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• [236]
• [237]
• [238]

Three days, three different examples of WP:ASPERSIONS violations. These accusations are nothing new but they have recently become more frequent. The two of us edit in some similar areas and tend to disagree a lot (which is fine), but the personal attacks have been bleeding into project space (particularly with the most recent edit summary linked above). I don't think any technical action is needed here, but a final warning that the next violation will result in a block would be nice. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Notified: [239]. VQuakr (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply I've been considering preparing a case against VQuakr for his repeated personal attacks, stalking and other unpleasant behavior. I've warned him on his talk page several times recently. This seems to be a preemptive strike. Sorry, was not planning to play his game today. I'd rather be doing more interesting things, but if he wants to pursue this, I'll marshal my evidence here...
• WP:STALKING: Why is he following my edits so very closely? [240] for which I have warned him. His response is unconvincing. [241]
• Personal attacks: like [242] accusing me of typing a "blatant falsehood" and immediately proposing a topic ban for me (which quickly failed).
• Talkpage warnings about personal attacks, stalking and other inappropriate behavior: [243] [244] [245]
• VQuakr edit warring: [246]
• Misidentifies what I tell him as a personal attack [247] and some of the above links.

I could bring forward more detailed difs, but #1 the stalking needs to stop #2 the personal attacks need to stop, and #3 the other nonsense like this ANi thread needs to stop. My tolerance for such behavior is at an all time low. Since VQuakr choose to file this report - the community needs to act against him, not when it gets way way out of hand. Legacypac (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict with Softlavender)

The interaction report shows our interactions in the areas where we are both active - MfD and drafts. That isn't stalking regardless of how many times you repeat the claim, which is all that you've linked. You are continuing the behavior here with which I have a problem - making a serious accusation without providing evidence, which is a violation of WP:NPA. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• Seriously, VQuakr, that's all ya got? You are trumping up an ANI case with THREE run-of-the-mill quotes of the type that happen thousands of times a day between normal civil editors all over Wikipedia? I suggest you withdraw this filing pronto before you get hit with a WP:BOOMERANG. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• -Thinks you should read the edit summary of the third diff. It's not at all civil.- Mr rnddude (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• The edit summary for the third diff is "see talkpage then. Stop with the WP:STALKING me all over the site". Are you saying that if Legacypac sees evidence of "stalking" and he comments as such, that the edit summary is not civil? If he had written "Stop fucking WP:STALKING me all over the place, asshole", I might agree, but otherwise why is it uncivil to point out possible WP:HARASSMENT in an edit summary? Given the information Legacypac posted above, [248] it looks to me as if there is a prima facie case for Legacypac's claim, one that VQuakr should respond to with more clarity then he did. [249]. I'm not saying that either one is in the right here, but I do think it's best not to aggravate a situation with unfounded claims. In my judgment, there's nothing uncivil in the edit summary of the third diff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: per your request: there are 25 pages at the link provided by Legacy that you cite, [250]:

• 10 are MFD discussions, exactly half of which I first edited prior to Legacy.
• 2 are WP:DRAFTS and WT:DRAFTS. An edit to the former was linked in the OP of this section.
• 1 was a warning on TakuyaMurata's talk page for edit warring "across the aisle" from Legacy (related to WP:DRAFTS above), that was delivered concurrently to one of the edit warring warnings on Legacy's talk page that I mention below.
• 4 are edits to drafts or draft talk pages that are/were the subject of an MfD.
• 1 is an AN3 report.
• 1 is a third party admin's talk page discussion related to an MfD, the interaction sequence on which can be seen here.
• 1 is Legacy's talk page, to which I have posted two edit warring warnings in the timeframe shown.
• 1 is my talk page.
• 1 is WT:CSD, where Legacy and I share a common interest.
• 3 (WP:RPP two other User talk pages) contain no actual interactions.

Legacy's reply above is a 4th example of a serious accusation, harassment, without supporting evidence. WP:NPA specifically cites this behavior is a personal attack, and WP:ASPERSIONS cites previous ARBCOM findings against precisely the behavior you summarize (routinely making serious accusations rather than bringing the issue to the appropriate forum). My asking him to stop doing this has not worked, so I'm asking someone uninvolved to warn him to stop violating policy. VQuakr (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: sure I could perform a dredging exercise and come up with a bunch more, but what would be the point? He's started casting aspersions daily, and I've asked for a lightweight response to intercept the escalation. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The point is that I assume you're asking for some kind of sanction against Legacypac, and the three diffs you provided are most probably not going to be sufficient for that. If Legacypac is indeed "casting aspersions daily", then it shouldn't take a "dredging exercise" to come up with new diffs, you should be able to lay your hands on them readily, which I would suggest you do if you expect an admin to take your complaint seriously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You don't need to assume anything; I identified my desired outcome (a warning) in the opening post. VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My point stands. IMO, you need to present more evidence, but, of course, it all depends on the admin who addresses the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Legacypac's aspersion casting is not limited to this case and he is not very credible in discussing matters related to stalking. Just a few days ago, he misconstrued my comments on an AN thread as a defense of stalking by another editor, even though I was supporting sanctions on the editor in question because of said stalking. It is bad enough that he failed to give fair-minded consideration to what I was saying, but he crossed the line by mischaracterizing my motives to his own advantage. When I called him out for this at his user talk page, he removed my post with the edit summary "Sorry can't discuss". If he can't discuss his comments (whether because of an iBan or whatever his reason is), then he shouldn't be making them, especially when they involve a reckless misrepresentation of the behavior of others. Lepricavark (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: If I recall correctly, you and Legacypac just had something of a run-in. Do you think it's a good idea to be commenting here when you still might be a bit biased from that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: he and I disagree not infrequently, but I honestly can't think of anything recent and exceptional. Are you referring to the recent AN3 post, or something else? The post here was prompted by the most recent diff linked in the OP, which seemed enough of an escalation in behavior that community intervention was warranted. VQuakr (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Sorry, my bad, my remark about "something of a run-in" was meant to be addressed to Lepricavark. I'll go back and label it now Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Thanks for the clarification! VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

NP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Your support is/was much appreciated. I still can't discuss your comments on my talkpage as they were outside the ANi thread. Sorry. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Obvious sarcasm is obvious. Lepricavark (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Lepricavark I'm not being sarcastic at all. In Canada we are famous for saying Sorry and meaning it! I genuinely appreciate your support. The ANi comment you referred to on my talk page was poorly worded and not intended as it came across. My removal of the comment was purely practical in view of a restriction I need to protect, and not intended as an insult or to suggest my unwillingness to discuss. Also, my reply here got seperated by intervening posts. No hard feelings on my side. Legacypac (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We're literally getting a new one of these threads every single week. Has anyone suggested an IBAN between VQuakr & Legacypac? I imagine this would reduce the amount of nonsense. -FASTILY 04:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that VQuakr hasn't really made a good case for disciplining Legacypac at all. If anything, VQuakr's behaviour has been more problematic but probably also not worth a block or ban. Reyk _YO! 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I'm tangentially involved in this menagerie I would note that Legacypac's edits have been reasonable, whereas VQuakr's edits strongly smell of certain ideological campaigns (anybody remember WP:ARS and their brigade voting strategies) and would suggest that at minimum VQuakr be warned that their contributions to XFD are in need of improvement and could be the cause of sanctions being leveled Hasteur (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

---

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

The MfD board

I think the solution here is that the admin community needs to be more involved on WP:MfD (which is currently backlogged). Based on this page and WP:AN, it appears that every active participant on that board is feuding loudly. I tried to close some discussions that I thought were "less controversial" and got run out of town on a rail.

Banning any number of participants on that board won't fix things. Send in the mops! Power~enwiki (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think the biggest issue right now is that we never sorted the Taku Drafts thing, so all the MfDs related to it are just sitting there, unclosed, inviting further nitpicking on all sides. If there had been a resolution for that I think we'd be in a better place but there was zero consensus for anything to be done on the whole so nothing gets done individually. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Its not a problem with MFD as such. The real problem is that MFD is being used as a process to delete stale drafts. Draftspace is intended to be a space where articles are prepared for mainspace, not a perpetual holding pattern for unworked pseudo-articles that couldn't actually cut it in mainspace. That's why people have sandboxes ;) When you have editors like Vquakr and Godsy voting keep on all sorts of crap drafts that have been untouched for 6 months, that they have zero intention of improving, and have little chance of surviving an AFD in mainspace, the problem will continue. The change to CSD in enabling abandoned drafts to be deleted after 6 months is a step forward, but Taku made it abundantly clear above they are just requesting refund and so it will sit there again for another 6 months and the cycle repeats. What there needs to be is a hard limit for articles in draftspace, 6 months of no use means its either moved to mainspace, moved to sandbox, or deleted through CSD. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: The part about me didn't sound right, and I just checked to confirm - I've voted some variation of "delete" about 30% more often than "keep" at MfD. Care to rephrase or clarify? VQuakr (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Not really. You have voted 'keep' on a significant number of useless drafts currently on MFD - specially relating to films (that are not in production and unlikely to be soon) and anything Taku related. None of which would survive an AFD, almost all of which have not been worked on for long periods. The problem is not with MFD, so that you vote delete on other discussions there is irrelevant when you are voting keep on most drafts that you vote on. The problem is with the handling of draftspace when editors like yourself want to keep it full of pseudo-article rubbish. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: as I noted in the post above, the claim "you are voting keep on most drafts that you vote on" is not accurate. I have voted delete on most of the drafts I have voted on. I also supported the expansion of G13 and do not agree that I "want to keep it full of pseudo-article rubbish" is an accurate characterization. VQuakr (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yup, Only in death hit the problem exactly. Some examples: [251], keep vote on a 1 line promotional piece [252], Keep on spam [253], keep on a film that's spend years in development hell[254] (Procedural keep and appears to say I'm trolling!), [255] keep on another dead film project, [256] Speedy Keep on a contentless Taku page (there are others) [257] Blank on a BLP that claimed with no refs the subject could faith heal and predict the future, [258] another BLP with no V or N evidence. Thank goodness for G13 expansion for it has saved a lot of drama at MfD. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any sanctions here, but would appreciate more productive and less negative activity. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• OID has hit the nail on the head. There are precisely two problems that plague the board:--
  • 1)Taku-craft

Until and unless, there's a community consensus about whether there is any need to deal with them and (if yes) how to deal with them, MFD isgoing to be a poor place.As, I wouldn't expect either Legacypac or Taku to back away from their modus-operandi.

• • 2)Can MfD evaluate staleness/article-potential?

There is no clear answer.We have different phrasings in different policies, all of which could be reasonably hammered and construed by both the sides (obviously in goodfaith) as a document that supports their and only their views.

Add to these, some useful idiots; (Hasteur will probably understand!) and we have got one hell of a package!Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Only noting for procedural reasons that an involved editor to this running menagerie is currently serving a 48 hour block for edit warring. I recommend that no action be taken with respect to this thread until the editor has had an opportunity to provide input. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Expanding on Hasteur's note that it's TakuyaMurata who is currently blocked, and who is the other side of the deletion issue, so yes it's probably wise to await their input before calling anything decided here. With that said, I endorse OID and Godric's comments here. Dealing with Taku's drafts piecemeal through MfD is a poor solution, and hasn't really worked any better than any of the other solutions that have been presented. Taku's pointy ownership of these pages isn't helping, but it's not the only problem. Anyway, what to do about all of them should be settled before any more are flagged for deletion individually. As for evaluating article potential, yes, I believe MfD can do so, but the RfC declaring that notability doesn't apply to drafts has left a lot of confusion which remains unsettled, so both "article potential" and "whether article potential matters" are still things that weigh heavily on who shows up to the discussion. There's not much that we can do about that. Otherwise, the issues here are the same that appear whenever there are editors passionate about opposing sides of an issue. Being in a rush to "solve it" isn't going to play well here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Godric on Leave: BTW, did you know your signature's link to your talk page is broken? There should only be one space where you have User__talk. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Unser:Ivanvector there are no more Taku drafts (or any other non-AfC drafts) currently stale so other than something he created in the last 6 months, there should be no more coming to MfD/G13 for about 5 months. I finished clearing that backlog yesterday.

We really need a new RFC. Citing WP:NMFD over and over is really not helpful and the wording there is far too stingy. I've managed, for now, to edit in why we give some room in Draft to not immediately apply N but my efforts to insert the word "immediately" are being fought by three editors: VQuakr, User:Diego Moya and Taku. (Taku has been all over trying to change site pages to protected his WP:WALLEDGARDEN which directly lead to a 3RR block., the other two seem to just like junk generally.)

An RFC like:

• Statement 1: "Draftspace is for indefinitely hosting pages on topics that fail WP:N and/or WP:V, so long as the pages do not fall stale" (per the application by supporters of the wording at WP:NMFD).

• Statement 2: "Users are given reasonable leeway to develop Drafts to establish Notability and provide Verification, but when it becomes evident that N and/or V are unlikely to be fulfilled the Draft may be deleted via MfD or any applicable CSD criteria" (per the long standing practice at MfD and AfC's handling of problematic submissions). If Statement 2 passes, it will replace the wording at WP:NMFD.

Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• OID has it exactly right. MfD itself isn't terrible, but the way stale drafts are being handled is atrocious. The only policy we have on stale drafts is completely insufficient, and there seems to be minimal community interest in participating at MfD. What's worse, the personalities there have become downright rude and demeaning. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, nor any particular side: We've all been bad. The real problem is that it's been going on for years now, and the parties on either side are deeply entrenched. I'd say this should be sent to ArbCom, but the best case scenario would be topic bans for a bunch of people... we'd still have no resolution to the lack of draftspace deletion policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If a fresh set of eyes are wanted at MfD I guess I can pop in every now and then. Reyk _YO! 05:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you can teach me how to pop in a fresh set of eyes. My old ones are quite worn out. EEng 11:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Lend me the tooth and you've got a deal. Reyk _YO! 12:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Missed your ping, LP, or I might have come back sooner. I agree that the RfC on notability issues in draft space needs to be revisited, and to that end I had started drafting a new RfC in my sandbox to clarify things. By "started" I mean I set aside a header for it and not much else, and I'm busy today and over the weekend so I might not be able to develop it for a few days. Have patience, anyway, none of this needs to be solved right away. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks because they won't get their way

• 24.253.207.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A few diffs [259], [260], [261], [262]
• Despite several attempts to explain what personal attacks are, about reliable sources, etc.

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

• Comment It's been going on, with one long break, since at least July 30 on my talk page, from more than one IP address. On my talk page, I've been deleting the attacks, because they're disruptive, personally insulting, and have a "wall of text" repetitive style. July 30: [263], [264], [265]. 2 September: [266]. 3 September: [267]. Those are ones on my talk page.

On the talk page of User: Doug Weller, 30 July: [268], [269]. 31 July: [270], [271].

On the Talk: Nephilim page, 30 July: [272], 1 September [273], [274].

On User talk:24.253.207.88, 1 September: [275]. On User talk:24.253.207.96, 1 September: [276], 3 September [[277]]. Both of these user pages are filled with various editors trying to get the IP editor to become civil. There has been no success so far. Alephb (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Additional note: It appears however that the POV edits to Nephilim have ceased for now so I didn't ask for protection at RFPP yet. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We've had two instances of IP vandalism on Nephilim today. I don't know if that's enough to reconsider page protection, but I thought I'd update the issue. I have no way to know whether there is any connection between the matter at hand and those. Alephb (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Matter Involving me and Alpehb

To whom it may concern,

I thought I would give you some data to consider.

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

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

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

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

This was said and meant.

I give this to you to show where I stand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to clarify -- are you saying that you stand by the comments you have made in the diffs above, such as referring to other users as "scum," "control freaks," "liars," and comparing an edit to a rape? Your defense that you simply want to be left alone is belied by the continued posting of personal attacks on other users' talk pages, even after repeatedly being warned not to do so, starting over one month ago. And as for the business of the Nephilim, this is not the right forum for discussing content disputes -- those should be handled elsewhere, such as on the appropriate talk pages. Here at ANI, we are not discussing whether or not your opinions about the Nephilim are correct; we are discussing an ongoing behavioral issue in violation of WP:PERSONAL. For our purposes here, whether you are ultimately correct or not about the Nephilim simply isn't relevant. Alephb (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what Alephb said above, adding: civil and proper communication is important on Wikipedia as this is how we form consensus including for content disputes. Accusing other editors of bad motives and of bigotry because they do not agree with a proposed edit (which is usually on policy and reliable sources grounds), is not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just came across this thread, and it sure looks to me like the IP is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Alephb (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. One can disagree with another editor, but outright attacking an editor with statements such as You are bigoted.. and you are uneducated in this diff is unwarranted. Furthermore, the IP's claims that I hold multiple Masters and Doctorates are completely worthless, largely because of the Essjay fiasco. Blackmane (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) It's perhaps worth noting that the IP appears to be pushing a fringe theory based on his/her unique interpretation of an obscure bible translation. My copy of the JPS Tanakh Gen6:4 has It was then, and later too, that the Nephilim appeared on earth–when the divine beings cohabited with the daughters of men, who bore them offspring. (emphasis mine) Yes, the NRSV translation (the one contained in the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible, which is used as a textbook in Yale's New Testament introductory course) actually agrees with the "Pastor Bible" on this point, but Christine Hayes has specifically referred to the JPS translations as being "more accurate"[278] than the old RSV. And while I don't doubt that many people holding fringe beliefs about the Book of Genesis hold multiple MAs and PhDs in relevant fields, we must remember how many non-accredited super-conservative evangelical seminaries give out degrees to people who don't engage in serious critical scholarship of the text. So Blackmane's comment that the IP's claims are "completely worthless" is actually wrong -- if anything, they actually count against the IP. I'm not saying that If the IP was right on the substance their personal remarks would be acceptable, just that not only are their remarks unacceptable but they are also almost certainly wrong on the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for the IP's views, I for one would have no objection to their being mentioned in the article, provided the edit was made in a way that is broadly in line with Wikipedia's basic nature and policies. What's going on here, fundamentally, is not a content dispute. My concern here is that we've got an editor who has ignored WP:PERSONAL for over one month, distributing personal attacks in long, repetitive, often copy-pasted rants over many talk pages despite a large number of attempts to try and rein in the vitriol. The editor also, with the exception of a single edit to an infobox, has no history of doing anything here except for promoting a particular view of Nephilim and then lashing out over the results over the course of more than a month. This is not an otherwise productive editor who has simply gone too far on one issue. This is not an editor who has made repeated mistakes and understood them. This is an editor carrying out a single-minded campaign, ignoring Wikipedia's policies, and contributing to the kind of atmosphere that makes many otherwise reasonable editors dislike contributing here. I propose a block at least until such time as the editor expresses an understanding of WP:PERSONAL and indicates some interest in doing something other than carrying on the current unproductive dispute. At least for now, the user is WP:NOTHERE.Alephb (talk) 07:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

39.46.122.85 and user:Fourfox posting ads for a college prep course

user:39.46.122.85 from Pakistan also known as user:Fourfox has been advertising by adding multiple references to a college prep course in various articles. The quality of the info is very poor--sometimes ridiculous as this example shows from "Woodrow Wilson" online at http://anrprep.com/woodrow-wilson/ :In March 1918, German sub marines torpedoed three unarmed American ships including famous ship Lusitania, which resulted in heavy losses. Britain propagated this news and the German aggressive behavior was condemned and US was forced into the war. [RMS Lusitania was sunk 3 years before in 1915--and US entered in 1917 not 1918 --rj] And on same page: America was one of the biggest sellers of arms and artillery to Europe. Since the world war had begun by that time, it was the issues of the credibility of American arms as a large number of US arms were being used by the allies in the 1st world war. The failure of allies in the war would have resulted as a disaster for the US weapon industry. (The US did not sell any munitions before it entered the war -- it shipped food & raw materials like steel-rj.) Rjensen (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Ramos1990 revert-warring RfC tag, attempting to poison RfC

Hello: I opened an already-ID'd RfC concerning an article and its adherence to WP:POLICY this morning [279], and another contributor has now twice [280][281] added other categories to it (clearly an attempt to distract from the policy issues and confuse/poison any discussion). In a further attempt to do this, he has now just added a new RfC for many categories[282], which will also pollute any discussion and the RfC boards. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, the RfC that User:ThePromender opened up today (September 9, 2017) [283] is literally a continuation of the the RfC he opened a few days ago (September 4, 2017) over the exact same discussion he started [284] (on September 4, 2017). Perhaps because he is unhappy with the results? Even when you look at this "new" RfC from today (September 9, 2017), he does reference the original September 4, 2017 discussion by clearly stating "For more background and sources, please refer to the conversation just above." and this time he does not include the other two categories (History and Religion/Philosophy) for which he started in the the first discussion see here [285]. All I did was restore the same categories since it looked suspicious that he would make another RfC 5 days later and this time he would only limit the categories for consultation to just "policy" (today) when he originally had "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" just 5 days ago.

To summarize, User:ThePromender's behavior looks very odd since why would he open an RfC on September 4, 2017 which included 3 categories for consultation (policy, history and religion/philosophy) and then close, reopen, and start another one RfC on September 9, 2017 and reference the September 4, 2017 discussion with only 1 category (Policy) this time around? It seems his first attempt (which did include the "policy" category, by the way) was not going in his favor so after 5 days, he is trying again but this time limiting the categories to just "Policy" to try manipulate the outcome. I think the original RfC from September 4, 2017 was good enough since it touched on policy and had the RfC policy category linked. It looks like no one agreed with him that a policy was violated so he is trying again and blaming me..

By the way, I agreed with some of User:The Promenader's suggestions throughout the September 4, 2017 discussion and even encouraged some changes to address his concerns. But apparently this was not enough. Please take note that User:ThePromenader has recently been "warned not warned not to comment on the motivations or conspiracies of other editors without hard evidence to back his claims and to edit collegially, even with those with whom he disagrees." by an admin who closed an ANI on September 3, 2017. [286]. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting interpretation of events, but since during our conversation, Ramos1990, we both demonstrated and agreed that the article title was a WP:NEOLOGISM, I centred the RfC on that WP:POLICY offence. There is no need to go into a content-debate (which would just distract/drown the central point). Come to your own conclusions about the urgent 'need' (edit-warring) to add categories to an RfC that isn't even one's own.

Character 'questioning' is no answer for the WP:POLICY offenses in question (strangely absent from the above comment), but by all means, my entire record is open to all. I have nothing more to add to this.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Only that now the RfC is about (society and sport?!) everything but the WP:POLICY offense it was opened for. Mission accomplished? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No we did not agree that the term was even a neologism especially since it is cited in the 1800s, per your own google search. I mentioned that a few times too and you yourself went as far back as "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" (your own words on its history). Also no other editor agreed that it was a neologism either per google book and scholar finds (used in handbooks, references, textbooks, and even topical dictionaries now). Another editor made the correction on the RfC categories you were not willing to do - make it the same as you had it when you made the first RfC. Also no need to make multiple RfCs when it is about the exact same discussion. Also why make another RfC on the same discussion over the same issues after only 5 days, right under it? Wasn't the first time enough?

Also, User:Redrose64's correction of your RfC categories was correct: here is what the WP:RFC says on the "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines": "The "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply them to a specific case." I did not know that before. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why all the selective-reality-interpretive character doubt-accusation sowing (that the accused always feels obliged to answer in case someone 'believes' it)? I'm new to RfC, and I closed the old one because it was badly formatted [287], but we continued the conversation all the same. You acknowledged even here that the term is coined/used by a particular group - that's the very definition of a WP:NEOLOGISM. Articles like that are normally deleted, but it only gets worse from there. Read the entire conversation [288] if you're interested, but this ANI is not about that, but your edit-warring and attempted RfC-distraction-poisoning. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

PS: I did not know that, either. Like I said, I'm new to RfC. So, since you did indeed think that the RfC would target the WP:POLICY offenses demonstrated, that explains a lot. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No I did not acknowledge that it was neologism because it was not and I mentioned that it was found in 1859 per your own list [289]. It is not a newly invented term - even you have discovered a "Pre-WWII" and "Post-1950s" history. A term that has +60 years and more is not a new term, or a newly coined term. The fact that it has a "Pre-WWII" history should be enough. Anyways, no I was not trying to poison anything since you had the "Policy" tag since your first RfC and I never contested it. I thought it was good idea to have "policy, history, and religion/philosophy" and the fact that you made another RfC over the exact same discussion 5 days later and how you removed the "history, and religion/philosophy" made me suspicious and you reverted me when I tried to restore the balance you had made in the first RfC. Not once did I ever remove the "Policy" category in either the 1st or 2nd RfC by the way (I even kept the "policy" on my attempt at making an RfC [290] since you kept on reverting me!) I only tried to restore the others. I have never heard of RfC so I am new to this too. No worries. Apologies if I made any mistakes on my end about it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is mostly a discussion about a content dispute, and ANI does not deal with content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone here keeps trying to turn this into a content-dispute. That is exactly what's going on with the RfC tag, as it isn't wasn't about content, either [291], but somebody really, really, really wants it to be about 'content' and not WP:POLICY, even edit-warring and modifying other-contributor RfC requests to that end, and that behaviour is exactly what this complaint is about. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• @ThePromenader:--I reviewed the entire RFC-scope and agree with the category-additions.At any cases, it will just attract a few more eyes.Also I can't see how this's different from a content dispute.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The very words 'more eyes' were my conclusion, too [292], but I don't see how revert-warring another contributor's RfC appeal can be about content. Anyhow, alea iacta est so this can be closed, I guess. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you barely wrote "more eyes" conclusion barely today and not yesterday when you made this ANI and accusations. I was trying to re-add the "more eyes" like you had it on the first RfC yesterday since it was the exact same discussion and you reverted me and made this ANI because of it. On top of that it looks like you have been manipulating other editors comments on the State Atheism talk page by moving around my comment to another section [293]. Please do not move comments by other editors on talk pages since there is a reason I put it there. This is odd behavior on your part. I would not alter or move any of your comments so I expect the same from you.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, that's an interesting after-the-fact interpretation of events, and Poisoning the well against another contributor for unrelated (and falsely related [294]) events is no answer for your trying to make another contributor's WP:POLICY RfC a 'content' one that it wasn't, and the fact that you edit-warred to push that through (and had a 'need to distract' so great that you (abusively) opened a second RfC [295]) only speaks for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Everything done at ANI is after-the-fact interpretation, by definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That was a 'rewriting history' put in the nicest way possible. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Respondents to the first RfC complained that it was a trainwreck. Under such a circumstance it's standard operating procedure to close the first RfC as malformed and do a second better one. I don't think the second one is much if any better; it is not neutrally asking the community a question, but aggressively pushing a WP:TRUTH / WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:NOT#ADVOCACY viewpoint, just like the first one did. So it should also be closed, but probably by an administrator. That doesn't make it an excuse for editwarring. So, both editors deserve a {{Trout}} for a different reasons. ANI isn't the place to argue about neologisms, and WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't even apply here; no one is trying to create an article about a non-notable word; the term is attested to at least the 19th century, and is found in many reliable sources newer than that, so it's probably not a good RfC topic, either. If there's going to be another RfC about that article (likely about its content), it needs to follow WP:RFC. If one is opened and it's a third trainwreck, RfC respondents will indicate that it is one; no editwarring to delete it, close it, or de-mark it as an RfC is needed. If WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problems continue, that's possibly an ANI-addressable disruption matter, but for now it looks like the editor is trying (albeit clumsily) to actually have an RfC about the nature and content of the article, and other editors are pointing out that it's clumsy and resulting in improper RfCs. It might make sense for a third party to draft and open an actually neutral RfC on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I would really appreciate that third-party aid, as I'd like nothing better than to return to my Paris-based articles corner, but that article really needs a policy-checkup; practically none of its sources even mention the article title (term), and I don't even know where to start with that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish perhaps understandably mistook my 'will someone come and take a f*cking look at this!??' goal, but I have to say that promoting 'truth' is not my intent at all.

After this note, I will let this die (be archived uresolved), but if this behaviour repeats, I will be bringing it out again. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Goguryeo: Requesting quick assistance

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.

---

Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs)

Requesting quick assistance as I am unable to implement action due to being involved. This is a possible case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR (evident through these comments: 1 2), please take a look at the revision history of the page starting from 08:44, 11 September 2017‎. For additional reading (not very long), User talk:Richeaglenoble contains everything. Alex Shih^Talk 10:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This is unfair.I uploded my picture legitimately.I took the picture from National meseum of Korea.Alex shin just hate to call Goguryeo as empire.Koreans call goguryeo as "empire" commonly.I hope Alex shin loves korean history.Richeaglenoble (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS is the standard--uninvolved/independent sources, not self-claims of the subject of an article or self-claims to have unpublished inside knowledge. Comment on the content, not the editor. DMacks (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd support an indefinite CIR block until REN recognizes the relevant Wikipedia policies. The above comment that completely misses the point is apparently characteristic, looking at his recent edit summaries. Either way, he's made four reverts in less than three hours, so should definitely be blocked to prevent more edit-warring in the immediate future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

BTW, the editor has clearly been logging out to edit-war at the Yuan Dynasty and Han Chinese articles.[296][297] Clearly this is another anti-Chinese Korean nationalist SPA, most likely somebody's sock, and the focus on articles on the Han Chinese ethnicity and how they supposedly miscegenated with Mongols makes this look like another really ugly/racist "pure or mixed blood" affair. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On my talk page the user has agreed to go looking for sources, but I really don't trust him. The fact that he has now essentially admitted he didn't have sources already is telling, and I see no reason to believe he won't twist any sources he finds to agree with what he already wants to write. He also still hasn't self-reverted, even though he admitted he did not have a source, nor apologized for any of the other tendentious aspects of his editing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Would another admin please take a look at the page. Many thanks. Alex Shih^Talk 07:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The disruption on the article has continued, including poor grammar/spelling and misrepresentation of sources (exactly as I predicted, he read the sources as saying exactly what he already wanted to write). Also worth noting that of his three image uploads, one is a clear COPYVIO (he calls it his "own work" despite admitting in the same edit to have scanned it from a government textbook), and the other two are quite possibly in violation of the relevant museum's rules, if the photo was even taken by REN, which I find questionable -- I'm not an expert, but doesn't the texture of the background look like a scanned image from a book more than an original photograph of a three-dimensional object? And then there's the edit-warring -- he made his sixth revert just over 24 hours after his first. Has this user made a single edit to the encyclopedia that isn't a liability? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• User: Diannaa, User:Primefac: Thank you for dealing with those "Goguryeo empire crown" images (no idea if you saw my above comment to the effect that they were probably copyvios), but could you take a look at the rest of this thread? The editor has been violating copyrights all over the place (on ja.wiki, even though he claims more proficiency in Japanese than English, he copy-pasted a large chunk of text from a newspaper article last week). It's clearly not just a language issue: the editor simply does not understand copyright, and unless someone monitors all his edits to make sure he doesn't do the same thing again, I worry a block might be the only way. (It may be moot, of course, if it turns out he's been socking and all his accounts get blocked for that reason. But I'm not holding my breath on that SPI getting addressed any time soon with how long my other "recent" SPI filing is taking.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  Astonishingly, the deleted copyrighted image has just been re-added. Alex Shih^Talk 08:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

He just keeps shooting himself in the foot. And I'm not even talking about what Alex mentioned above. Apparently he thinks that admins of Korean and possibly Chinese ethnic background will be more sympathetic to his cause. Or something -- perhaps he thinks that westerners "don't get it". Or perhaps just non-Koreans -- I'd say there's a 90% chance he thinks I'm Japanese. Google Translate some of the shit he's been posting over the last few hours. Someone should just put him out of his misery already. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Based on this thread regarding the crown images (and if anything happens because of it), I'd be willing to AGF, but this discussion makes it sound like it's just one in a long serious of copyright violations. Their IDHT attitude doesn't help things either. No opinions at this moment on a block, but they certainly seem to be aiming for one. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I'm not sure if you read Chinese or Korean. My Korean is non-existent and my Chinese isn't much better. But I can still tell that the story REN told you doesn't seem to hold up under scrutiny. To summarize my long reply to REN on your talk page: The photos on that blog he linked were probably taken with several different cameras, quite possibly over a period of decades, and at least two of them (including the one under discussion here) were clearly scanned from a book or pamphlet, intended for an audience of mainland Chinese readers, where the blog is clearly meant for a Korean readership. It's still theoretically possible that REN is the one who owns the photos, but why would he put a scan of a book with text in a different language on his blog if he had the original photo? And he also claimed on your talk page to have taken the photo in 2010, but the blog in question was posted in 2008. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I don't have any AGF to give (DGAAGF?). Primefac (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• The IDHT/CIR/COPYVIO continues I know it's not in itself a sanctionable action on here, but it does bear on whether this user is either incapable or unwilling to learn: his most recent edits on any Wikimedia project consisted of him describing his copy-pasting of about 80% of a newspaper article onto ja.wiki without giving any kind of inline indication that the text is a quote as It's quoting from the article, and has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So, is anyone going to deal with this?

The editor has been quite open about his not trusting "Chinese administrators" (an unambiguous personal attack -- derogatory phrases based on race, [...] ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors -- against Alex Shih and arguably against plenty of other editors), has repeatedly violated copyright, refused to listen when copyright was repeatedly explained to him, in one case clearly lied about having taken one of the photos himself, and is apparently also socking (he obviously created two accounts at the same time and the first action of both accounts was to take steps to get around page protection).

Any one of these violations would be enough to justify an immediate indefinite block by itself, and in combination they basically leave no alternative.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Would support an indefinite block having thought about this for a couple of days. Blackmane (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I too would support an indef block, based on the evidence presented in the above threads. It's a snake pit of problems, pointing to WP:NOTHERE, WP:SPA, and a good helping of WP:CIR to add to the mix. Irondome (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. I don't see an alternative, with such a combination of serious issues and an unwillingness/inability to change. -- Begoon 05:05, 15 September 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.

Editing behaviour at David S. Chang

The editor Preschang has been making some concerning edits of the David S. Chang article. Allegations have been made by another editor that Preschang is David S. Chang, while Preschang is loudly decrying the article as libellous, which seems like an implied kegal threat. I came to this aricle from a 3O request, but since Preschang isn't engaging in discussion, that's not the appropriate resolution forum. An admin taking a look at the situation would be helpful. Thanks. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My ex wife made an implied kegel threat once. 'Bout broke my back. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, that was A+. Your are cordially invited to join my glittering array of talk page stalkers. EEng 18:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Marathon: I've left the user a message regarding this, asking them to propose their desired changes on the talk page or contact Wikipedia. If they remove they info again, I'll give them an edit-warring warning. Thanks. Linguist^unEins^uno 10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the info pending confirmation by more than 1 local newspaper, based on un-named sources, when law enforcement have not even confirmed under investigation, let alone charged with anything. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for gossip. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Persistent blanking of politically themed content despite numerous warnings

This editor is, in spite of warnings, persistently and disruptively adding uncited content removing content from politically categorized articles as shown

• here
• here
• here in which the edit summary amazingly simply reads blanked the page
• and here

to name a few. The editor has been warned by user:DrFleischman, user:Bishonen, user:General_Ization and myself as shown here after having received guidance on several occasions from other editors who were following guidelines and being polite. At the very least this editor needs to receive firmer caution that we have editorial policies and standards for interaction with other editors. I don't think this editor should be allowed to comment on the talk pages or make contributions to articles about politics. Edaham (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Edaham, I agree about the disruptive editing, but the user hasn't AFAICS done anything wrong after my warning, so I'd prefer to wait and see. Bishonen | talk 10:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC).

OK it could be a time zone issue or me looking at the times of the warnings being issued rather than the actual edits. Apologies if this was an inappropriately filed ANI report, hopefully there's not a problem with bringing attention to a page with that many warnings on it. Edaham (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, Edaham, and thank you for watching out for disruptive editing. The way the user removes all warnings without response, and without so far having changed their ways, isn't exactly promising. However, since I warned them explicitly that there might be a block coming their way in case of further disruption, there's nothing more to be done right now. Also, Doug Weller has given them a discretionary sanctions alert for American politics. Bishonen | talk 14:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC).

• (uninvolved) I was remarkably pinged because of a booboo on the filer's end (Which they thankfully fixed). Anyways, with regards to the "Blanked the page" one, I'd like to point out that that edit summary was an automatic edit summary, not written by the user. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

you live and learn. I've never blanked an entire page before and didn't know about this automatic summary Edaham (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Perusing user Edaham's half-year-long edit summary history, it's clear that he's (1) not a newbie, but an experienced user with a new name or pseudonym; and (2) primarily himself concerned with political controversy.

He seems to be using this complaint to address a content dispute. I suggest immediate closure due to lack of cause, along with a WP:BOOMERANG warning, and the advice to learn only bring properly formatted complaints against named parties.

Indeed, I am here only because I, like User:K6ka, was pinged as having been mentioned, while I was not mentioned in this complaint, and have never been involved with Edaham or any of the articles he deals with--i.e., my time's been wasted over a tissy. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Heart Songs Corporation

Could someone have a look at this page... I noticed an edit removing content claiming that it was slanderous - and the content does appear to have been added recently by an IP. I reverted the page to what appears to be the last good version, but if someone could check my work that would be great. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: I think that was the right thing to do as one of the refs was linking to a web page with defamatory allegations. But that article is an AfD candidate if ever I saw one! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Home Lander: Good work, I've added a COI tag as one of the editors is clearly the CEO. I don't know if it should be deleted or not. I'll leave that to someone who knows. Jschnur (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Malcolmxl5 and Jschnur. I agree on the deletion and have PROD-ed the page for now. Home Lander (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for reviewing the block of a disruptive 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.

---

I request all admins to take a look at the User:Umair Aj. The User is been currently blocked for couple of weeks for sheer disruptive editing. The blocking administrator was himself Shocked to see the disruptive and malicious editing of the user [298]. From the past record of the user it is also proved that the user is a proven master sock, and the two sockpuppets of the user has been indefinitely blocked [299]. The user was blocked for sockpuppetry for a week, after getting unblocked continued their disruptive editing and now is again blocked for two weeks, with a final warning of an indefinite block. It is clear from the users history their intention is to create disruption through their malicious editing, only to get away from scrutiny welcomes new users through twinkle. I think as soon as this block will expiry the user will again create disruption. Anoptimistix (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: So... you came here just to badmouth someone who is blocked and can't defend themselves? Classy. Do you have any evidence that they are evading their block? The SPI archive you link appears to show one instance of sockpuppetry from two years ago, and the live SPI shows you making an accusation you have been unable or unwilling to substantiate in more than three weeks, and one other account being CU-blocked for technical reasons beyond my comprehension and similarly failing to enable email to discuss with the blocking admin. Unless UA has done something since his block to justify upping to indef ... well, it looks like you are more unhappy with User:Swarm's choosing not to indef off the bat than anything else, which means ... well, if this is really about Swarm, you probably should have notified them. Unless that is what your email two days ago was about. You are not going to get "all admins" to do anything about this if you have been unable to convince the blocking admin to reconsider their own decision. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time either, and I should warn Anoptimistix that if this behavior continues then they are just as likely to be blocked. They sent a similar canvassing email to me because I'm "from India like me". I did not reply to the email but notified via edit summary that I thought both their edits were problematic and COIN or ANI will soon deal with them both and I had no interest in getting involved. Both editors have unclean hands here, targeting each other and the articles created definitely need a look-in by regulars at COIN and/or some extra love at AfD. The behavioral problems stem from that. —SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And, Anoptimistix, your actions here are nothing more than a waste of community time, and I'm sure this isn't the only such thing out there. —SpacemanSpiff 12:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Then there's your overlap with at least one paid COI sock farm -- one of the reasons Siddharth Slathia was salted under a few titles, but you seem to be aware of that when you created it at Sidharth Slathia despite referring to the subject as Siddharth Slathia within the article. Please explain this as well. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 SpacemanSpiff I apologise if this thread seemed inappropriate, as you both are much experienced and are here since years and I respect you both. I agree SpacemanSpiff I should not have sended email to request you to intervene (I sended that because from my point of view the user appeared to be a wikihounder and the evidences given by admin swarm was more than nough to prove my point), and as you were an uninvolved administrator plus I really like the cricket related articles which you created. And yes fair point SpacemanSpiff I should have Boldly moved that article about the new user which was about themself to their userspace instead of taking to Afd. Next time I will boldly move such articles to the users userspace. And SpacemanSpiff the subject of Siddharth Slathia had in-depth coverage by reliable news media Hindustan Times which made it pass WP:GNG and also WP:MUSICBIO, and the last admin who deleted it was inactive and I had already requested to unprotect it's creation at WP:RPP to allow me to create it, however my request was denied as the admin who denied it wasn't familiar with the reliability of Indian media and it's coverage. Please assume good faith SpacemanSpiff, I was about to go at Request moves to move that article after it's creation, but I started creating articles about Indian villages ad Census Town and bringing nominations of great content creators at PERM.Anoptimistix (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff The problem starts back in 2014 when Siddharth Slathia's was not enough notable to merit an article, but after 2016 September the entry of Reliance Jio changed the scenario, Indian music listeners started exploring Youtube and appreciating Singers who sing cover versions, as they were a subject of public interest they got enough in-depth coverage per WP:GNG to merit an article of their own. I hope I have answered to your question. But now my interest more lies in creating articles about towns, villages and geographical places. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not buying this, if this was one issue in isolation then it can be passed off as not knowing, but these are multiple issues where you have deliberately chosen to behave this way. I'm also not convinced that you should have the autoreviewer flag and all your creations have to be checked. —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 The brief evidences of disruptive editing given by long-time prolific admin Swarm [300] is enough to justify my concern. And yes I could not give more evidence even after two weeks at the live SPI, becoz that page revision history was deleted by an admin (please check the log of that page). And I personally have requested the checkuser on their talk page to close it down. My heartfelt apologies for late reply to SpacemanSpiff and Hijiri88, and Hijiri88 yes I have contacted the blocking admin, but since after the admin Swarm's years of service, they now remain less active so i came here and my concern are genuine about the user Umair Aj , please see this, the latest case related to the user Umair Aj [301], (a good faith user appealed the user Umair Aj to stop edit warring, but instead of taking it's cognizance they reverted it the appeal notice, this shows the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and there is another evidence which is yet another revert of a warning, yup this is another revert of edit warring notice. Admin Swarm on the users talk page as well as I here have given more than enough evidence. But still Hijri88 you think I am badmouthing ? For your info Hijri88 I spend large time on this project for welcoming new users and I firmly believe in Editor Retention, Regards.

SpacemanSpiff Yes you can surely check my creations at Xtools, most of them are about villages and census town, notable living people and songs which are created per WP:BIO, WP:NSONG and WP:GEOFEAT. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Anoptimistix, at RFPP you were specifically advised to submit that draft to AfC, and then if it was accepted it could be moved: [302]. Instead you ignored that advice and changed the spelling to get around the protection:[303]. Why? -- Begoon 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Begoon Apology for that dear, the first time I requested I had made a draft about it on my sandbox but a user Winged Blades of Godric wrote on my talk page that my request was not accepted (you can check my talk page history), the next time I request I don't know what happened of that as I used a small mobile device to edit Wikipedia which requires lot of hard work, and I get notification when my fellow wikipedian inlink my created article and ping me, rest updates about my request I do not get until I get message on my talk page. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it was a different, later draft. Its history shows no AfC submission I can see, and anyway that doesn't answer my question about altering the spelling to get around the protection (2nd diff above):[304]. -- Begoon 14:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And then there's this copyvio from as recently as two months ago. Clearly, you shouldn't have autopatrolled rights, as your contributions need to be reviewed. Unless Malinaccier has some objections because they reviewed the copyvios as well as the removal of many articles at AfD and didn't think it to be a problem, I will remove that right from you. —SpacemanSpiff 14:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: Hi. As you know, the autopatrolled right merely marks a newly created article as patrolled, which I do not see as a problem based on Anoptimistix's created article log. If you believe that Anoptimistix will create a new article in the future that is a copyvio based on continued copyright violations or that there are other deeper misunderstandings of article policy, then removal of the autopatrolled right is appropriate and I of course defer to you. You appear to be much more personally familiar with Anoptimistix's editing abilities. From the outside, the issues you have raised may be best dealt with by a block or a clear and final warning to Anoptimistix before a block if they are part of a pattern of continued disruption. Malinaccier (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Begoon I edit Wikipedia from a small Android device, the only update which I got is this [305] by user Winged Blades of Godric, I swear I was unaware about the suggestion given by the admin on my second request. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

And the reason for the spelling change to the title: [306]? Perhaps you missed that part of my question again? -- Begoon 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff you love cricket so does I love music, so I create music related articles but it's also true that I have numerous non-music related articles and yes that I have not violated knowingly any copyvio, I write content in my intermediate knowledge of english. I think you didn't liked my help request mail, it was my mistake I mistakenly thought you were ready to help. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff Can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 14:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC) And SpacemanSpiff can you please show which article of mine was deleted at AfD. ? The only one which I can remember was about a song, which was soft-deleted as nobody participated in Afd discussion except nominator. And later was successfully restored at WP:REFUND. SpacemanSpiff even if you remove autoreviewer rights than still I will keep on creating articles about villages, towns , notable songs as I love creating articles, and yes if you disliked that help request email i really apologize for it, I wrongly assumed you as an always ready to help admin, would better seek help of admin who publicly write that they are ready to help on their userpage, next time if I face harrasment here. As they say better go for a third opinion of an uninvolved admin if you face troublesome here so I asked help from you. Sorry will not ask help from you next time. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me! As for articles, I said removed, not deleted as there are quite a few that had to be redirected at AfD and don't about your email to me, you did not assume I'm helpful, you said you were contacting me because I'm Indian and speak Hindi! I'm always ready to help good-faith editors, but that was not your request, simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 15:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Malinaccier Thanks for your comment, but I want to clarify I have never been a part of disruption here, neither I knowingly violated any copyright, never an admin have warned me for copyvio, and spacemanspiff (I'm not pinging you per your above comment) my contributions here includes posting welcomes messages at numerous newbie's talk page for editor retention purpose, patrolling 300 plus new pages, bringing nominations of good content creators at WP:PERM/A to reduce backlog at NPP and workload of new page patrollers, many times I wrote articles of newbies from scratch devoting hours for it, struggled to find indepth sources to save their articles from deletion, and create numerous articles about underrepresented villages and town which passes WP:GEOFEAT (certainly all of those were good-faith edits). And SpacemanSpiff after you declined to help me some months ago and reverted my "You've got an email" edit on your talk page with an edit summary which had no piece of help, I was thinking about quitting the project but then I went upto administrator User:Anarchyte who encouraged me to stay on Wikipedia and commended my contributions. SpacemanSpiff I have got references of some kind-hearted polite admins who are ready to help at stressful situations, next time If I face such situations I would request help from them. Once again apologizing for sending you help request email. Anoptimistix (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Anoptimistix, your passive-aggressive hints about SpacemanSpiff are merely ridiculous. Don't attack people here. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC).

Bishonen Aplology for the belated reply it's 1.43 am here. I was just defending myself, I don't mean to sound aggressive towards SpacemanSpiff. He have made immense contributions to WikiProject:India and I am always indebted to them for this. Anoptimistix (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Trout? Boomerang?

I haven't read through all the above bludgeoning, but what I did read (that which was addressed at me) didn't look promising. Anoptimistix (talk · contribs) appears to have opened this thread for no purpose but to whine about someone who's already blocked, has admitted to requesting a CU for phishing, has been flagrantly stealth-canvassing, and just keeps refusing to drop it despite all the voices telling him to. I'm leaning in favour of a quick close and a heavy WP:TROUT for the OP, but my gut is telling me that a WP:BOOMERANG miht not be out of order. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Response : Please see this [307], I had last month requested the checkuser who asked for more evidence to close down the SPI , as I believed that page, on which I suspected vandalism by the user (who was formerly proved as a master sock) to be oversighted, later I learnt from the logs of that page that a major part of the Revision History has been suppressed, even the checkuser affirmed that the sock activity on that page is suspicious on that live SPI, however I requested them to close it down as obviously I couldn't see the edits anymore and couldn't provide diffs. Warm Regards. Anoptimistix (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't suppressed or I don't think you would see it in the logs at all - it was revision deleted by Diannaa - (RD1-Copyright violations) ... -- Begoon 09:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Begoon That page is a high traffic article, with over 100,000 visitors a month (I got this info from page information link) and many editors have edited it in past as well, pages about celebs are heavily edited, that page was created and edited since 2013 I'm here since 2016 :) Anoptimistix (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think at the least autoreviewer and NPP user rights have to be removed owing to the copyvios and poor quality articles from the past two months. The user also doesn't seem to understand anything and as evidenced on their repeated parroting of the above claim of me being unhelpful to their canvassing email that asked me to take action against Umair Aj only because I share a nationality with him(the OP), well then, it's obvious he hasn't got a clue of editing collaboaratively or understanding policies, guidelines, and standards. Then, there's the refusal to answer Begoon's question, the overlap with a paid COI sock farm. Like I said in my edit summary in response to his canvassing email, I had no interest of wasting my time on this, unfortunately I've gotten sucked in. —SpacemanSpiff 00:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support two-week block I just noticed the OP's repeated dosging of User:Begoon's question about his obvious attempt to game the system with a trick of spelling. Anoptimistix needs to be taught that this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I think if there are serious COPYVIO concerns an indef might be justified, but at least as long as Umair seems appropriate given the behaviour demonstrated in this thread. Also support removal of user rights per SpacemanSpiff. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Hijiri88 Mate Please check the latest update, I have replied to Begoon, Siddharth and Sidharth both are synonymous per Indian naming system. And instead of starting this section if you would have left a polite note on my talk page, indicating that this project no longer needs my contributions. I would have voluntarily declared retirement without any sorrows, but still i would repeatedly say I have not violated any copyright intentionally, infact somedays back I have Earwig's copyvio detecting tool installed at my User:Anoptimistix/common.js for assisting me at NPP. I have done my best to attribute original source and wrote contents on my words. Further there is no evidence that I intentionally violated any copyright. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Per SpacemanSpiff, I support removal of the user rights - there is clearly a need for that to happen. I also glanced at WP:PERM/A, which the OP points to, and most of the OPs nominations there are declined at the moment, so perhaps that's not a good activity for them right now (especially with any COI/gaming concerns here). With regards to further action, I'm not sure; there are, indeed, worrying signs that Anoptimistix does lack a certain amount of competence, and the walls of evasion and attempted deflection above are concerning. On the other hand, ANI is a stressful place, and there do appear to be some good intentions in their contributions. -- Begoon 01:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Begoon Thanks for your kind words at the end , and I want to inform you only some of my recent nominations were declined, most of my nominations at WP:PERM/A were accepted. Even the declining admin Alex Shih himself thanked me for bringing it. Regards, [308] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoptimistix (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Begoon I did not observe the additional question which you ask me, I will reply, I was about to go at the requested moves for that, and really I was not informed that I was recommended to create draft of the subject, I get notifications only when I am pinged, my articles are inlinked and if I get message on my talk page by the Bell icon on the right hand on my mobile phone, if I knew I was recommended to create a draft first in the subject of Slathia, I would have surely created draft first. And SpacemanSpiff which copyvio you are taking about, can you give me any evidence where an administrator /user have warned me but still I committed copyvio? And you said poor quality of articles since 2 months I have been creating stub articles about underrepresented Indian villages and towns, Do you think those efforts are of poor quality and my recent article was about a cricketer Jasia Akhtar, she clearly passes notability, and administrator Malinaccier have already given my articles creation log above I don't know when i committed copyvio and was warned by an admin/users and then again repeated it ?. And you are misinterpreting the email, at that time I requested can you help to deal me with the stress and you certainly did not helped, and that too was some months ago. Let SpacemanSpiff be clear I have never ever received any warning for copyvio on my creations, infact the accusation of knowingly committing any copyvio is itself baseless. Anoptimistix (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Atrocious. You were warned on April 2 by Diannaa, and you continued doing the same thing on the same article since then until as recently as August! Another note from Diannaa on Jun 14 reg copyright of lyrics. Then there's this where you were again warned about both tag removals as well as copyright violations; there's also this which implies that you shouldn't be reviewing new pages (as also evidenced by the recent diff I posted above). —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff those were not warnings they were cautions and requests. After prolific admin Dianna recommended me some months ago to not write lyrics of the song, after that I have never written lyrics of any song, In my early days here I wrote the lyrics of the song as I thought it was permissible as editors who edit films article write entire plot, which is more serious copyvio. But I now no longer write articles about songs, as songs articles are not valued here. At NPP I have worked honestly and even my almighty knows it, I have struggled to find indepth coverages to save New comers articles from deletion and single handedly written it from scratch. But SpacemanSpiff please also take a look at Nichalp, the user was a former admin and bureaucrat desyssoped for paid editing by arbitration committee per WP:MISS list, they have been inactive for years but I can see they still have many rights. However dear SpacemanSpiff I myself voluntarily decided to quit the project, Regards will always pray for your good health and long life. Anoptimistix (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• The (still) unanswered question (now for the 4th time), was - Why, when moving your draft to mainspace [309], did you deliberately circumvent the protection you knew was in place by altering the spelling in the title? You did that simply to get the article into mainspace and autopatrolled, in my opinion, and the move you now say you were "about to" request, even if you had done so, would not make that action any less wrong. Have you requested the move now that you've "remembered"? (If you reply to this, please properly indent your response - sticking all your posts unindented at the bottom has made a huge mess of this thread.) -- Begoon 02:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Begoon I was going to do that but spend more time in creating articles about different topics, Inititally I was finding it difficult to create it through my mobile phone, so i wrote Sidharth Slathia, because this Indian name is especially used by the Marathi community to pronounce, so I thought no problem in it as both words are synonymous, the Indian pronouncing style Siddharth=Sidharth would remain same, for evidence please check the subject of Shreya Ghoshal initially when it's creator created it, her last name was spelled Ghosal rather than Ghoshal because both are synonymous, and the content inside the article reffered her as Ghoshal, later it was moved per request, and I have requested the move about Slathia. [310] Anoptimistix (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• That might have been a bit plausible if it were not for the fact that you knew at the time that the article was create protected, having already enquired about it, subsequently had a draft rejected, and still did not request the move until prompted here once again. In these circumstances I'm afraid it stretches AGF past breaking point, sorry. -- Begoon 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support to removal of user flags. As per diffs available above, Anoptimistix clearly misused his autopatrolled flag for creating a salted article. He can also misuse the NPP flag. Once Anoptimistix had accused me of wiki-hounding him, ironically, since then I started to skim his contrib history in every few days. His overall behaviour is very suspicious (immediate clearing of talkpage, his explanations in requests at WP:PERM for NPP, and page mover flags). At one time, I even raised concern about his auto-patrolled flag over article creation of not-so-notable songs: Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F. He is clearly working very hard to get a good standing in the community, but his other side also gets visible once in a while. Which leads to the question, why is he working so hard on his image? —usernamekiran(talk) 02:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran Thanks for commenting here, the incident which you are talking about were many months ago, I have personally apologized from you on the talk pages if you can remember, initially I thought you were observing my contrb history in with an intention to Afd my articles (like you did with that two articles), and fair point that was silly I was little protective about my creations, but later you turned friendly as you started supporting my keep votes at Afd's for example Kanpur Police Station and many others and about your thread at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archive 11#Improper A-PAT.3F, as you can see prolific content creator right there MrX said that most articles I created were sourced by reliable sources, he commented this when I didn't have any flags. And At NPP rights page I have requested I would help to expand stub article and a admin granted me, later I honestly fullfilled it, please check my NPP reviewing log, I had expanded most new articles from scratch, struggled accross the web to collect in-depth references to save newbies first creation from deletion and at NPP I had declined your one of speedy deletion because it could have been easily userfied , even admin SoWHy declined your recent nomination which you tagged for CSD A7, according to him the claim of winning the award was enough to credibly indicate the significance of the subject. I believe in saving worthy articles from deletion, because articles made Wikipedia. Readers read Wikipedia becoz of articles, this is a project which is very dear to me as since my childhood I use this as my reference, I cannot thank enough to those hardworking volunteers like us who build this without taking any penny. Anoptimistix (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support revocation of auto patrolled and NPP flags per WP:CIR. Editors lack of understanding of nuanced English is amply illustrated above in his discourse on notification, caution and warning. Anoptimistix, a mother cautioning her child not to play on the railroad tracks is just as much a warning as the locomotive's horn as it is about to run you over. If you lack the language skills to discern that, you haven't the skill set to review other's (or your own) work. Simple as that! John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. I don't believe he's crossed the line to warrant any blocks (yet), but there is evidence to the user being unable to properly analyse an article before creating or patrolling it. I believe their heart might be in the right place but their actions are questionable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. Sorry for the copy and paste, but I agree with Anarchyte completely. I also believe Anoptimistix's heart is in the right place based on my interactions (which are limited to WP:PERM only), but this thread was ill-advised to begin with, and every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible. Alex Shih^Talk 08:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: Alex Shih and Anarchyte Thanks both for your kindwords, I don't mind getting both flags removed, I requested for autoreviewer right as my created articles were remaining unreviewed for many months, and I had requested NPP right because when I was brand new my first article was speedily deleted like it happens with most new comers, I requested it so that I can find in-depth secondary sources coverage to cite as references at the newbies created article to make it pass WP:GNG and Mark it reviewed so that they can stay here for long time, but in my service here I have never justified any copyvio like Usernamekiran evidence is [311], Usernamekiran themself said that there copied material should not be deleted, isn't this intentional copyvio ?is intentionally justifying copyvio by Usernamekiran on their created article is fair for a user with NPP rights ? Whatever it was but I greatly respect Kiran and will always acknowledge his contributions and service done here. And Anarchyte and Alex Shih your comment that my heart is in right place was really heartwarming, Thanks once again. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Anoptimistix, you really are not doing yourself any favours here. You started this ill-advised thread to attempt to get further sanctions on a blocked user. Since then you've done little but attempt to evade and deflect criticism, groping for fault in those who have pointed out any of your errors, grasping at the few positive things people have had to say, while ignoring or incoherently and long-windedly "justifying" the negative. You should try to remove those blinkers. You behaved atrociously towards SpacemanSpiff, now Usernamekiran is your latest "target". Also, did you not see "their actions are questionable" or "every evidence presented here in addition to every subsequent response are simply indefensible" in the comments you were so grateful for? I'm honestly not sure you absorbed them if you did. I said above that I wasn't sure if additional sanctions were needed, but truly, each time you make a post like this I feel more like they might be, as my estimate of your competence, self-awareness and ability to interact collegially decreases. -- Begoon 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I was not intending to comment on this thread again, but the situation is calling for it.

• Anoptimistix, I am always friendly. I never opposed or supported any particular individual ever. I did whatever the policy said. That police department deserved an article so I voted keep. Your participation had no influence over me.
• Since very beginning, when your account was fairly recently active, you were told by another user not to clear your talkpage like the way you were doing. You were told to archive it. This was a clear indication to yourself that you were not familiar with enwiki policies, and "wiki code", yet on your userpage you continued to put stuff like "I help new users".
• Your english is not so good (sended, runned, didnt liked; and many grammatical errors), and yet your articles are perfectly fine. Not even a single mistake. And thats suspicious.
  • Your userpage also contains some userboxes that you have nothing to do with, or you dont have the skills for (eg "guild of copyeditors").
  • I see this as you are trying to improve your own image in the eyes of the community, but not an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia (which you also do, but I now believe it is just a cover).
• Regarding my "justification" for copy-vio: The content which was copied, falls under public domain. In other words, it doesnt have any copyrights. So I never violated copyright law, as the copyrights didnt exist. I didnt "justified" my copy-paste. At the time I copied the content; I was aware of the copyright terms of the content, i was aware of copyright laws, and i was aware of enwiki policies. I simply explained the situation. Its not a justification.
• This also reminds me: how do you know about it? I would like to mention here that Anaoptimix seems to have been hounding my activities.
  • He requested for NPP flag, which I think I already had when we had our first communication. Later he requested for page mover flag, twice; after a few days/weeks from me getting the flag. His reasoning for the flag was odd too. These requests maybe co-incidences.
  • Anoptimistix also seems to loosely copy my contributions. A few weeks ago, I created a category for recipients of an intelligence award. And I was recently tagginng a lot of categories with a wikiproject banner. And around the same time, the user in discussion started contributing in categories field.

The user also seems to be extraordinarily familiar with policies of a very limited area, which interesting as well. Also, if somebody is looking at their talkpage history, it hasnt been properly archived. One archive is not visible on the talkpage, and some threads were not archived at all. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Notify - Usernamekiran Bro I had initiated the discussion about the possible copyright violations due to plot on Wikipedia's film articles some days ago where some fellow wikipedians opined it may be where some not, please see the discussion on the talk page. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Kiran - Well dear Usernamekiran I will reply to this one by one 1) You asked that how can I help newcomers If I don't know "wikicode" , Well i can say we don't need to be an expert in wikicode to help newcomers for example if a blind man want to cross the street we don't need to be a specialist doctor for helping him, instead we can also help ! So does I, I try to help people not only on Wikipedia but on real life too

2) You asked my "English is not perfect than how my articles are perfectly fine" well I take this as a compliment because spacemanspiff said it's poorly written and Begoon used insulting remarks at Hijri88's talk page. Well I want to reply that grammatical errors are because of Android autocorrect and autoprediction (which predicts mostly wrong) but I rectify it and takes a special care and preview it at least 3 times before publishing on main space, for example see a companies article which I created per WP:CORPDEPTH, as soon as I started it it attracted significant other contributors including IP users who expanded it see the diffs [312], and I ould also like to share credits with our hardworking special souls.

3) You asked me dear that I have no skills of Copyediting then why I had put guild of copyeditors userbox ? Well I want to reply that you have written that you are a computer scientist on your userpage but I can't see any helpful bot or userscripts of yours in action, does it means that you have lied ? Certainly not, similarly I am learning copyediting and doing my best to learn it.

4) You asked that that how I know about your justification of copyvio, you wrote there Even if it is copied, it can be edited. I got to know about it because of Xtools-Article creation log, you have contributed 4 or 3 articles so it was not very difficult to find about it as I am primarily an article writer so of course I have a bit of research skills.

5) You asked that why my talk discussions is not properly archived, you know the answer bro ! I am not a programmer (I only know start level HTML and some CSS) and wikimarkups so of course I didn't knew about MuszaBot/config archiving system. You shared it with me , for this I will always be grateful to you dear Kiran, but as I got the script of one click archive, I got more comfortable with it so I no longer need MuszaBot/config.

6) I am aware of article creation policies primarily which includes WP:RS WP:NOR, WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GEOFEAT, WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:NACTOR WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BLP and many others, I hope you got all your answers. But I still think you could have simply asked this on my talk page :) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of the two rights but oppose block. Per Anarchyte. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

 Update The user's communication here shows an extreme flaw in his understanding of copyright laws. Excluding his interaction with Diaana (and his confusion over "caution", "request", and "warnings"), the user apparently doesnt understand what copyright violation is. He even said "writing plot of movie is more serious copy-vio". When pointing out my "voilation", he provided this diff. Within the diff itself I explained why it wasnt a violation, and even provided link to {{PD-USGov}}. The template provides a good deal of information. I doubt he didnt see the template, he must have seen it. It clearly indicates he doesnt understad what copyrights actually are. In this case, NPP, and A-PAT are not suitable for him. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This comment reminded me to take a quick look through Anoptimistix's Commons uploads, since images are my "thing". There were already a good few deleted copyvios in the talk page history, and unfortunately I found several more that needed to be deleted: [313], [314], [315]. A fair number of these deleted uploads relate to the Arijit Singh article, which was linked way above by SpacemanSpiff with regards to copyvio concerns, making this of some relevance here. -- Begoon 02:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: - Begoon I am always grateful to usernamekiran because they had shared Muszabot archiving config with me which helped me to archive talk pages some months ago (before this I unintentionally removed posts on my talk page as I like to keep things clean), and I respect them but was little hurt with their behaviour towards me at this place, before coming here they went to an admins (SpacemanSpiff) talk page and notified them about their email which is apparently about demoting my user rights and further motivated them to misuse admins revision deletion tool to delete edit history, but as spacemanspiff is a experienced admin he simply ignored it [316]. Encouraging an admin to misuse their tool is ungodly, and as they asked me about spelling mistakes, it is because of Android autocorrect keyboard mostly and they even made typo mistakes on their above comment, but I didn't made fun of their typo errors because we all are human beings we all mistakes but we should also rectify it. Begoon if you can remember in 2012 when you completed more than 2 years on Wikipedia you created an article about a school Scone Grammar School which has "no secondary reliable source coverage" and your only article creation to this date" it is clear that it's fails WP:GNG and WP:RS and the primary sources that is the school's website url's are dead not functioning, it appears that it is your school and a clear case of Conflict of Interest but I never pointed it out because I respect you as my colleague and also your efforts in creating that article, and further you insulted my created article Jasia Akhtar by calling it "crappy" on the user talk of the user who opened this "Boomerang" section [317], but again I won't feel bad because I respect you as my fellow wikipedian. I don't mind if any of the rights are removed but such insults really hurts, more than any removal of a right. And I thanked Anarchyte and Alex Shih because they are great hardworking admins but thought to spend some of their valuable time to write kind words about my personality. Anoptimistix (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least I win the $5 I bet my wife this morning that it was about time you turned your aimless flailing towards me. As with most of the things you have said in this thread you are completely wrong. No, it isn't "my school" - the article was created with a young relative who attended the school observing, so she could learn about wikipedia. It's my only article creation because article creation isn't what I do. Check out instead, amongst much else, my contributions to the Graphic Labs, and the many hundreds of time consuming image improvements here and at Commons before I became recently less active. I have no need to justify myself to you - I do this merely in the vain hope that you might think "oh, shit, I've gone and made an even bigger damn fool of myself by mindlessly lashing out again without looking at the big picture..." I know it's unlikely, but one can hope. You may learn, eventually. -- Begoon 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Reply to Begoon about their query about Sidharth Slathia - Begoon kindly please see an article by reliable and reputed Indian news media Hindustan Times Click here for the coverage. As you can see this coverage is very significant, reliable, independent of the subject but was published in September 2017, not in 2014 (when the article about slathia was deleted ). The WP:NTEMP guide says once a subject has received "significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". The topic has significant coverage, it also passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria number 1 which reads Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Passes all notability tests. So you mean to say only a singer who sings in English language deserves an article on Wikipedia, rest don't  ? And I have also not cited "primary sources" like personal websites as references like you did to Scone Grammar School. Once again I clarify I respect you as well as your contributions, but giving appropriate reply in the best civilised way, I will never use humilating remarks like "crappy" like you did to me at the "Boomerang" section opener Hijri88's talk page [318], Regards. Anoptimistix (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You appear to have utterly lost the plot, now. I have absolutely no idea why you posted all that (especially the very odd bit about English language singers - what??). Show me where I have ever said the current version of the Sidharth Slathia article fails our inclusion criteria - or you could just say "oops, sorry, you haven't said that at all", I guess... -- Begoon 17:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Anoptimistix: This is going to be my last comment in this thread. There is a 50-50% chance that the email was about you. Maybe it was about another user. Usually I contact another admin for such matters, but he is busy with his real life issues; so I contacted Spaceman. Kindly do not assume it was about you. I usually prefer emails, this was not the first incident. And no, I did not request anybody to demote any user. I simply expressed my opinions. And as per my comment above, I have supported to remove your two flags, not one. So there are very high chances the email was about somebody else. Or maybe it was about you.
Although, I am curious how did you come across this thread which was deleted after a very short period. Maybe you have watchlisted spaceman's talkpage, or maybe you skimmed through my edit history. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone please close this

Consensus is obvious, this thread has outlived its value now and is just adding to the wastage of storage space and bandwidth! —SpacemanSpiff 13:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, any continuation is simply pointless. I am starting to consider WP:IAR and close this thread/enact the consensus if no one else closes. Alex Shih^Talk 14:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes please do I am visiting here daily because running away from this place would portray me as courageless. I am happy contributing to this project as long as my enthusiasm remains, with or without any right. Had only requested Autoreviewer right as most of my creations would remain unreviewed for months, the right granting admin was very kind, but I can contribute without this right too ! And I had request NPP to help New comers by supporting their newly created pages by citing in-depth coverages and marking it as reviewed which I honestly did I will continue patrolling newpages but will not be able to mark it as reviewied it which is fine. I also thank all those who "opposed block" you guys were very kind. I also request apology from SpacemanSpiff as some users felt I was aggressive towards them, which I certainly wasn't and have always respected them and their immense contributions to this project which includes mammoth collection of articles and other tireless contributions to the project. Best wishes. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:33, 16 September 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.

Fancy Bear (Russia's hack of the DNC)

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 that page obviously falls under American Politics 2, can some uninvolved admin tag the talk page with the usual disclaimer? I'm tired of poorly-sourced conspiracy theories being broadcast there for a general audience. Geogene (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Placed a 1RR restriction, since most recent edits are from registered accounts. Miniapolis 22:23, 15 September 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:32.218.38.102

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 has been continuously been disrupting Wikipedia by edit warring at User talk:32.218.38.102 and has harassed one user! I am surprised this IP hasn't been as there is continuous disruption being caused. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page at any time. The exception are unblock requests that are declined for currently effective blocks on the user. I would suggest not placing the warnings on the user's page again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pkbwcgs You are very much in the wrong as to who is edit warring contrary to policy at that IP talk page. You've misunderstood and misapplied WP:BLANKING completely. The IP is completely free to remove the templates you've added to their talk page and it's you who are not exempt from 3RR in this situation.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have completely stopped reverting this IP's edits and I currently not even touching the IP's talk page. In fact, I won't even involve in this situation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That's good, I wish you'd decided to do that sooner. Also, it's good because if you touch that talk page again I will block you. Also noting that, once again, the underlying issue that started this whole thing was a good edit by the IP, which was reverted twice for no reason by another editor, and when the IP took offense, multiple editors decided to gang up on the IP. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but you've been blocked indefinitely twice in the space of less than a year. Seeing this does not give me the feeling you've learned from your last block, which was just removed earlier this month. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I have promised myself that if I touch this IP's user talk page or his/her edits ever again, I will be re-blocked. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'm very concerned about your edits in general. For instance this edit just feels like vandalism. You reverted an IP's perfectly valid edit for seemingly no reason and with no edit summary. It seems from your recent edit history this isn't an uncommon pattern, and you've been wrong several times but appear to automatically assume an edit by an IP address is vandalism. Canterbury Tail talk 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'll close this in a second. Pkbwcgs, you got a half dozen heavy hitters giving you solid advice and I'm afraid you're still not listening very well. Floq wasn't telling you not to revert that IP editor again; they were telling you to not simply revert some IP edit without checking very carefully whether the edit is good or not, and if you revert you damn well better explain what you are doing and why; and every editor here, IP or not, gets to decide within certain limits, what to do on their talk page and you are not the one to decide what the limits are and whether or not they've been crossed. Am I making myself, and those other cats, clear? You're on a tight leash: senseless reverting, edit warring on someone's talk page, BITEy behavior, etc., any of these, or others yet unlisted! can lead to another block. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 15 September 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.

TPTB's agenda on article(s related to) FC Steaua București

This user is constantly altering said article (history) deleting valid info supported by valid references and adding info based solely on a fan site (http://www.steaualibera.com) and photographed (original?) documents [319] and [320]. This not only violates the WP:NOR principle, I also am not sure the images are even real – if you reverse search them you'll find they are hosted only on yellow press sites at best. Yet the user manages to juggle the Wikipedia policies and recently obtained blocking of one of the users that pointed to the problem many many times. On Romanian Wikipedia, administrators were more vigilant and protected ro:FCSB and ro:CSA Steaua București (fotbal) without long ceremonies when it became clear that TPTB has an agenda. Please consider protecting the article for some period so that TPTB is stopped. Thank you. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

CC @Ymblanter: @Andrei Stroe:. Gikü (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not really care who is right and who is wrong here, but the user I blocked reverted carelessly without explaining theor position (they added multiple talk page protected edit requests which were all rejected and they were reverted by multiple users).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - This is not true. It's true that I linked a lot of references to that website, but that's only because the website hosts those documents and it's easier for me to find them. One of the documents in question is a court ruling. It's a scanned document. Those guys are the onlyones who have the entire thing. You can find the document here: http://www.steaualibera.com/2017/06/07/exclusivitatea-motivarea-deciziei-din-dosarul-numele-steaua/ The Romanian press posted parts of the document but not the entire thing. If you want, I can link to them as well, but the sources are not as complete as that full document. Here is one of them: http://www.ziare.com/fcsb/stiri-fcsb/exclusiv-avem-motivarea-curtii-de-apel-iata-de-ce-a-fost-obligat-becali-sa-schimbe-numele-echipei-1467840 The documents in question are original documents. In this one https://images.gsp.ro/usr/thumbs/thumb_588_x_379/2017/01/25/790860-762160-rkx4017-gigi-becali-acte-certificat-de-identitate-sportiva.jpg you can see the FC Fcsb owner holding the team's birth certificate. This sports certificate shows that his team was founded in 2003. Additionally, the people who edit the FC Steaua Bucuresti page clearly have their own agenda and are only looking to create confusion. Take, for example, the year the team was founded. Right now it says that the team was founded on July 7 1947. The people editing this page claim that it's a page about Steaua Bucharest, the Romanian football team that won the European Champions Cup in 1986. However, that team was founded on June 7 1947. The people editing the page claim to know what they're doing. But they clearly don't. No Romanian football team was founded on July 7 1947. The fact that they make such a big mistake clearly shows that they either have no idea what they're doing or that they just want to make fun of a certain team and create confusion. I am going to say this one last time. The Romanian court forbade FC Fcsb to use the names Steaua, Steaua Bucuresti or any other name that may let someone believe that that team is Steaua Bucharest. Here's a link to the Romanian Ministry of Justice website, where you can clearly see that FC Fcsb has no right to use the name Steaua Bucharest: http://portal.just.ro/2/SitePages/Dosar.aspx?id_dosar=300000000660029&id_inst=2 I am trying to help wikipedia and tell the truth. If someone says that I'm lying, then let him bring some solid proof to back that up. As for the user Taras bulba 47, who only created his account just to vandalize the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and who evidently asked his friend to intervine on his behalf, the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more. You can check it out for yourselves. That's about it from me. - TPTB (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

TPTB is making his or her own interpretations based on primary sources published only on some channels that are dubious at best. For instance, claiming that a "Certificat de identitate sportivă" is the "birth certificate" of the team is ridiculous: this a merely a document that states a certain company is registered as practicing a certain sport. In Romania, they have only been issued since 2001 based on a law that had been passed the previous year, so no team will have one that is older; and it also absolutely cannot cover cases such as the shift that happened there in the 1990s, when state-owned "amateur" clubs (all Eastern European clubs before that time were state-owned) turned privately-owned professional clubs. For this purpose, a commercial entity had to be created, and the assets had to be transferred from the state to the privately-owned company. So of course the new company is registered in the 1990s or the 2000s, but the teams they manage go back a long time before. The vandalism accusation against Taras bulba 47 is also far-fetched: I found no diff where s/he wrote any insults or personal attacks. I can see, however, what Ymblanter takes to be disruptive editing, and that Taras bulba 47 also looks like s/he has an agenda. Sliding on the disruptive editing slope is something that happens a lot to newcomers, and in this case it seems to have happened to both users. Discussion is the key. I haven't had interactions with Taras bulba 47 on ro.wp, but my and Giku's experience there with TPTB is that we're talking to someone who's here to fight a WP:BATTLE.- Andrei (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - The thing you said above is a common mistake in Romania. Those certificates are not given to companies, but to sports clubs. A company may own a club and manage it, and it can get one of those certificates if it does. But, if it does not own a sports club, then it will definitely not get one. The deal with FC Fcsb's sports certificate is that it was issued at the same time when the team was founded. Becali, the guy pulling the strings at FC Fcsb, claims that he purchased the Steaua Bucharest football team. However, that team already had a sports certificate in 2003. Had Becali purchased the team, he would have also acquired its certificate and he wouldn't have needed to ask for a new one. The fact that FC Fcsb's certificate was issued in 2003 and it existed at the same time as Steaua's sports certificate shows pretty clearly that the two are distinct entities. This is why FC Fcsb lost the right to use the Steaua Bucharest brand and name. So yeah. I'm here to fight a battle. I want wikipedia to show the truth. Is that a problem? Or am I supposed to just accept lies just because some of you are too lazy to do proper research? As for Taras bulba 47, it's really easy to go to the CSA Steaua Bucuresti (football) page and look at some of the edits made there within the past 24 hours. You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right? - TPTB (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You could show respect to the dozen of people involved in the discussions and refrain from editing the page until the issues are settled. Ideally the page should be fully protected so nobody edits until consensus but it looks like admins are not in a hurry. Gikü (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What issue are you talking about. Everything is already settled. The Romanian Court of Appeals already decided the matter. They said that FC fcsb is not Steaua, that it can't use the Steaua name. It's been 9 months since the decision was final and the page still shows the name Steaua Bucuresti, because some of you are supporters of FC Fcsb and refuse to change it. - TPTB (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It's settled for you. There are people disagreeing. Please wait for the consensus. Gikü (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it's settled. Period. There's no more debate. FC Fcsb is not allowed to use the Steaua Bucharest name anymore. It is not allowed to use the Steaua Brand anymore. This is what's settled. The fact that some people don't want to respect and obey the laws in Romania shouldn't be used as an excuse to write fake articles on wikipedia. And you will edit this page sooner or later. Whether you like it or not. Because FC fcsb's days are numbered. If they lose one more lawsuit, they're done. They will be shut down. - TPTB (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: : my apologies for the repeated modification requests. I understand these requests must be better edited and documented. I have to mention that all my requests were made in an attempt to roll-back the destructive changes made by TPTB. The majority of them were "undos" of his changes. Looking at his recent contributions it's obvious that he has an agenda (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TPTB ). Since yesterday he kept on modifying articles relating to FCSB (formerly called Steaua Bucuresti) football team. I will not go into details now, I will do it on the articles' talk pages, but I am kindly making this request again: please protect pages related tot Steaua Bucuresti and only allow modifications after a careful review has verified all the information. It's painful to see how administrators have allowed TPTB to alter the truth for almost two weeks! The articles I think require a careful protection and watch are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steaua https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSA_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti_(football)

The latter misrepresents the reality by mentioning the football team created in 2017, with no affiliation to FRF (Romanian Football Federation) or UEFA, has 21 national titles :) Again, I will not go into details here but please: put a stop to this! Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gikü, @Andrei Stroe: Thank you for bringing this to the English noticeboard. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@@TPTB:: I really don't think there's a point engaging in this conversation with you. Your lies have spread even here on the noticeboard. I quote <<the guy only wrote insults on the page, nothing more.>> and <<You'll find words such as "muie talpan"("fuck Talpan" - Talpan is the legal officer who won the lawsuits against FC Fcsb on behalf of Steaua Bucharest), but that's probably not vandalism in your opinion, right?>> just to mention some of your blatant lies. I made no such comments and this is very easily verifiable! I cannot comprehend why you'd even bother to lie like this. Taras bulba 47 (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Now music articles part 2

Rangeblocked by Ponyo; nothing else to do here. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Right on schedule, the two-week rangeblock placed after this ANI report has lifted and the vandal has resumed the same disruption. Can we get a rangeblock of longer duration on 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000::/64? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Involved IPs 14 Sep 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000:90C7:D476:F87A:32E2 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 13 Sep 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000:A138:60CD:FEA6:110E (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 12 Sep 90.200.29.101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) 2A02:C7D:9E23:3000::/64 reblocked for 1 month (which is about the duration they've been active on this range).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Qewr4231

I'd like to propose a topic ban for editor Qewr4231 on anything related to Kip McKean, the International Christian Church and the International Churches of Christ. Editor is a self-described former member of the church, he obviously had a painful time, but unfortunately he has been using Wikipedia talk pages for the better part of a decade as a soapbox for venting about the church and what he describes as its cultish practices. This goes back to 2009. After years of this behavior and years of being asked not to soapbox, and subsequently three blocks for this behavior in 2015, the editor still finds opportunities to dump preachy screeds like this and this today. He often disappears for long stretches of time, sometimes six months or more, (so long-term blocking is probably not terribly effective) and then returns with the same behavior. It really becomes a timesuck for the two editors who are actively trying to maintain these articles, JamieBrown2011 and Coachbricewilliams28.

The previous blocks have obvious been unhelpful, but I'm not aware of the editor having problems at any other articles, so I think the topic ban would perhaps be a more humane way to approach this. I don't get the sense Qewr4231 is a bad fella, but this is an area that is especially prickly to him, and I think he needs an external system to help him with self-control. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support I second this, greatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coachbricewilliams28 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Despite blocks of increasing lengths, Qewr4231 has been unable to avoid soapboxing and advocacy regarding this specific group of articles. A topic ban will set a clear boundary and allow the editor to contribute productively to articles on unrelated topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I agree. He is not a bad guy, so it shouldn't extend beyond what you are suggesting, but he clearly has an axe to grind. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that some International Church of Christ members, Kip Mckean himself, and International Christian Church members are editing these pages and putting a pro-ICOC, pro-ICC, pro-Kip Mckean stance on the articles. I know for a fact that some of the information in the articles is incorrect, but I get blasted every time I say that the information is incorrect. Any negative material on Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC seems to get blocked and discussed away. There are hundreds of websites, YouTube videos, and ministers outside of the ICOC and ICC that refer to them as cults; however, editors seem to want to block all of this information. I think that people, possible ICOC and ICC members are trying to block true information about the ICOC and ICC from being posted on Wikipedia. I think that some editors are bullying me. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel that editors such as JamieBrown2011, Cyphoidbomb, and CoachBriceWilliams28 are bullying me over the International Churches of Christ, International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean pages. The pages themselves sound like advertisements for these people/organizations. I know that some of the information contained in those articles is not true because I am a former member of the International Chruches of Christ. I feel that these and other editors are blocking information about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christian Churches, and Kip Mckean. I also think that the International Churches of Christ page, the International Christian Churches page, and the Kip Mckean page should be deleted from Wikipedia as these are not neutral topics. Sorry, I'm not that great of an internet user and I don't know how to link to all of the different Wikipedia rule pages. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Q, the issue is that your experiences have given you tunnel vision preventing you from seeing the truth behind your circumstances. Your rigid , religious sentimentality has seemingly warped your perception of reality....Again, I would NEVER have an issue with your posts IF what you said was true. I don't honestly care about all this POV talk regarding you; it's merely the accuracy. Based on all my research, things are radically different in both churches you seem to soapbox on plus Thomas (aka Kip) is on record refuting and disproving majority of the very things you say fairly conclusively even for a no non sense guy like me. I completely understand that you feel the overwhelming videos and blogs in existence give you credibility HOWEVER this is an academic forum. If someone FEELS a certain way, they can't just rewrite wiki based on their emotions. That is the opposite of science and academia. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There you go again with the bullying. How do you know everything you say is true and everything I say is false? I have evidence that proves certain things about Kip Mckean, the ICOC, and the ICC; however every time I try to show that evidence on Wikipedia other editors dismiss it as soapboxing. Stop bullying me. Wikipedia is not an academic resource. I am in a doctoral program at a university and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource. It is not accepted as a resource at all. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

What I said is true. Don't call me a liar I lived the ICOC and experienced it for five years. I knew kip Mckean personally. I knew his wife personally. I know things about them that you don't even know. Qewr4231 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. I suggest you drop it, or you'll just end up indefinitely blocked. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. Whatever secrets Qewr4231 knows, if they haven't been published in a reliable source, they're likely not appropriate material for Wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• • That said, I'm very concerned about the content on International Christian Church (not to be confused with International Churches of Christ which has a longer history and larger membership) and am considering AfD on that article if I cannot find reliable and independent secondary references. I will discuss my content concerns on the talk page. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Power~enwiki The International Christian Church has 80 churches with ~5,300 members. The previous conclusion to the AFD proposal was "keep" because this is a rapidly growing group formed ~2 years post International Churches of Christ implosion. I passively support this idea based on the idea that independent sources are few and far between. I resist this idea because what if in 10 more years they are @10,000 members with 200 churches? Surely we can't ignore their existance just because their primary citations come from their own publishing affiliate. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbicewilliams28 Why do you care so much about the ICC and whether or not the ICC grows and expands? I'm not ignoring them. What I am saying is this: The ICC is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should contain factual information instead of controversial material that can't be substantiated with facts Qewr4231 (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support TBAN While I am somewhat sympathetic to this user's motivations, I think he/she needs to realize that Wikipedia editing privileges are for helping to build the encyclopedia. A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes, and the above comments are enough to convince me that, whether Qewr4231 is right or not, he/she should let cooler heads solve the problems with the articles. If it was really only undeclared COISPAs shooting Qewr4231 down on the talk pages, they would be the ones getting reported here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88 How does supporting articles on controversial organizations that have very little factual evidence support Wikipedia and help build up Wikipedia? One of the reasons that Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic source at almost every university is that Wikipedia has tons of pages on controversial topics created by editors that are either pro or con that topic. And these controversial topics have little to no real evidence to back them up. Is it good that most of the information on the ICOC comes from their own websites and sources? What if I started a company or organization, created a Wikipedia article, and then sourced it with information from mostly my organization's website? Would that be a neutral article or would I be advertising my organization? Qewr4231 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment No opinion on the ban, but the articles seem to need some tone cleanup and maybe more (Wikipedia shouldn't be talking about "bitterness in his heart" in its own voice), and I confess to some curiosity about a church that calls itself the Sold-out Discipling Movement, or (wait for it...) SODM. Hmmmmmm. EEng 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

EEng#s At one point I was looking for a source for this SODM name origin. The best I found was a video clip on youtube explaining how a detractor from the International Churches of Christ used it as an insult and the leadership of the International Christian Church believed it to be clever. The name meaning is merely to say, they believe in mentoring one another for accountability & selling out their personal dreams in life for the cause of their savior. Not unheard of. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It's like when the First Unitarian Church of Berkeley moved to the adjacent town of Kensington, but elected not to rename themselves the First Unitarian Church of Kensington. (Think about it.) EEng 14:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I do not support the ban. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

<REDACTED BY Hijiri88.> Qewr4231 (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Qewr4231: You are entitled to your own religious beliefs about who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, but you are not allowed attack named living people by calling them "liars", "frauds" and the like unless you have a reliable source. Generally speaking, calling a self-identified Christian "not a Christian" or "not a real Christian" is also a no-no. WP:BLP applies to this page as well as the article space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Your vote, much like your comment above, don't matter. You're only digging the hole deeper. In fact, that latest comment is probably enough to get you banned outright. So... good job shooting yourself in the foot. --Tarage (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

If an editor looks like he's shooting himself, should we contact WP:EMERGENCY? EEng 03:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tarage Thanks I'm so glad that my vote and my comment doesn't matter (sarcasm). Is Wikipedia a club that only some people are privy to? Do you blacklist people that dont' conform to your opinion(s)? Wikipedia is not an academic source. Wikipedia is not accepted at any university as an academic source. Up until now I have never criticized Wikipedia. I am just saying that Wikipedia doesn't have correct information on three of its pages: ICOC, ICC, Kip Mckean. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point I don't care. Qewr4231 (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

There's the door. --Tarage (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Qewr, I think I made it clear that I was not proposing a total editing ban at Wikipedia, rather a ban over topics specifically related to Kip McKean and his churches. Your continued rants here are not helping your cause, and your attempts to portray yourself as a victim of bullying are grossly disrespectful to people who endure actual bullying. You've been approached relatively politely for years and you've not made any material changes to your own behavior. Nobody's ever said you can't think, feel, or exist, only that you can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I'm very sorry that you had a shitty experience at this church, and I do feel for you, but Wikipedia is simply not the place to work out these issues. And I'll say it again in case you missed it: I don't think you're a bad fella, but you seem to be incapable of participating in this area in a constructive fashion. If you want to participate in a less controversial area like weightlifting, I've no interest in getting in your way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hold on. I'm not saying Qewr4231 is perfect, but I do not see large scale disruption by this editor. They are not edit warring article space. They are making suggestions on Talk that have some value. It is Coachbricewilliams28 who appears to be struggling most with Wikipedia norms, like RS. Bondegezou (talk) 07:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

To expand, Hijiri88 suggests abopingve that, "A user who hasn't made a single mainspace edit in three years should not be using talk pages as soapboxes". However, Qewr4231 said here that they feel they have a conflict of interest, so they refrain from editing the article directly and stick to Talk. That's what we ask people to do: Qewr4231's avoidance of mainspace around these articles is not a failing. Instead, Qewr4231 is making Talk page edits that appear to me to be a genuine attempt to improve the quality of Wikipedia. Here are some of their more recent edits: [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328], [329], [330], [331]. Those all look OK to me, attempts to help and appropriate Talk page chat, with consideration given to reliable sources. Constructive edits, in other words.

Qewr4231 did make this edit recently that might be considered soapboxing. It was moving away from useful Talk page discussion into a forum-style discussion, but it's hardly the greatest Wikipedia sin ever. Qewr4231 is generally seeking to work within Wikipedia rules and is not, as some have suggested above, seeking to insert information based on personal experience into article space.

Meanwhile, Talk:International_Christian_Church#Moving_Forward shows that Coachbricewilliams28 has been taking a while to understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV, so describing them as an editor who is "actively trying to maintain these articles", as Cyphoidbomb does above, is not quite the wording I'd use.

So, I think a topic ban is over the top. It would be advisable for several editors to take a break from these pages and focus their efforts elsewhere for a while. I am not surprised that Qewr4231 feels bullied and I hope s/he can move beyond this incident. I entirely support Hijiri 88's point below: what these articles need most is more eyes on them to improve them. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I appreciate contrary perspective on the matter and someone acting as advocate for Qewr4231. What do you propose as an alternative to topic ban? No sanction and we just delete any posts that veer off topic? This isn't a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious what you think would be helpful. Further, I would be fine with dropping the topic ban proposal and removing the three articles from my own watchlist if several of you want to pick up the management per Hijiri88's suggestion below. I have zero interest in this subject. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I would propose merely being polite, but ignoring comments that are less helpful. I see you deleted Qewr4231's soapbox-y comment. Fine: problem solved. Qewr4231 didn't dispute that act, as far as I can see. So where's the problem? I wish all problems on Wikipedia were so easily ignorable: there's no edit-warring here, no substantial uncivility. I don't see why everyone can't just continue on as they are doing. Qewr4231 (in the last couple of years) is otherwise making some useful suggestions for the articles: if you don't find them useful, leave them. If you do, act on them. If there are occasional "posts that veer off topic", delete them, or hide them, or just leave them alone. Bondegezou (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my statement above about the lack of mainspace edits was about Qewr's apparent general lack of interest in building an encyclopedia, not about his voluntarily refraining from editing the articles on topics in which he has a COI. Actually, I find that latter claim somewhat dubious -- if he was only not editing those artixles because of his COI, that wouldn't explain why he has not edited any articles in several years. Wikipedia editing privileges exist for the purpose of building the encyclopedia, and when someone refuses to use them for anything other than soapboxing, the typical approach is to sanction them in some manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. I looked through a fair number of Qewr's edits over the last two years. I would only call one or maybe two of them soapboxing. The vast majority appear genuine attempts to improve the articles concerned. Occasional off-purpose posts to a Talk page should not get someone topic banned. Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou Admittedly, my WP:RS struggles have been due to the lack of 3rd party content on the subject. The citations used historically on the ICC wiki have been either from their own nascent publishing arm, the Icoc themselves or a blog from a former member. My casual suggestion within the talk was to utilize the self published sources so long as it is reasonable to conclude their accuracy. Ie: Church demographics. As for the WP:NPOV I hopefully fixed that by observing the tone and style of other writers. Just a rookie mistake. I have no interest in a POV, merely accuracy. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams: If what you are saying is accurate, then the ICC article should be deleted. Topics that have not received sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources do not get articles on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Repinging User:Coachbricewilliams28 after botched attempt above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Hijiri88 That is interesting. Of the 43 citations NOT EVEN ONE is sourced by someone who isn't staff of the Icoc or Icc. That doesn't make the information inaccurate, but does this TRULY violate a standard of Wiki? I ask because now the Icoc page is HIGHLY suspect as well. The Icc has gone from a splinter group in a living room to 5,300 people in 10 years. That's notable to have a wiki but all sources are 1 dimensional. Thoughts? Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the articles and the other SPAs/near-SPAs on the other "side"...

I notice several impartial observers, myself included, are pointing to the problematic nature of one or two of the articles in question, and it might be worth noting that one of the users User:Cyphoidbomb pinged initially is an SPA, and the other is a near-SPA (with over half his mainspace edits and almost 90% of his talk edits to the same article). Whether or not Qewr is TBANned, it might worth putting more eyes on the articles themselves as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No objection from me (why would there be?). It's definitely an area that needs more eyes. I asked WikiProject Christianity to help out a couple of years ago to little avail. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to quote the coach here - "While I have experience in both the ICOC and the partially accurate splinter church in discussion (ICC)" from the Talk page. A topic ban for Qewr4231, Who has never edited the article, is in sledgehammer and nut territory. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I appreciate the perspective. As I noted to Bondegezou in the subsection above, I'm fine with dropping the TBAN proposal and withdraw from watching those articles, if other people want to pick up the slack. This is an issue though that has been going on for many years and though it's gotten less frequent, it's still a needless distraction. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: I don't know if "he's never edited the articles -- we can't TBAN him" is the right way of looking at the problem. He's been engaging in gross violation of the BLP violation in this discussion, and BLP definitely applies to the talk space as well. Aside from a TBAN, what else would you propose to make the disruption stop? A block? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to all----> Just to be clear, I've never been a member of that church. They were a force on my old university though. I def saw their red tshirts from time to time. That + recent research is my "experience." Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coachbricewilliams28: Well, have you considered editing some Wikipedia articles on other topic areas? It doesn't look good when your only contributions are related to a conservative religious group and we're being told that they are disproportionately positive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I would love to. I was using this page as more of a sandbox because I found the rules initially confusing. I do plan on staying in the realm of theology and kinesiology though. Great suggestion. I'll begin to venture out. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you'll forgive me for being skeptical. You've had an account for almost a year, which really akes it look like if you wanted to edit other topic areas you would have done so already. But good luck, anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Coachbricewilliams28 (talk Count me as another rather skeptical observer, A SPA editor who has inside knowledge of ex-members and their motives for writing criticisms and leaving the church!!! JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Per Cullen328. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

To be clear I have edited other articles. I have edited the America's Test Kitchen page and the Cook's Country page and/or made suggestions to those pages on the talk pages. Anyway, I don't know why Wikipedia cares so much about the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean. There isn't enough factual information on the International Churches of Christ, the International Christ Church, or Kip Mckean to really state what is fact and what is not fact. Ex-members know what the truth about Kip Mckean's movements is. There are hundreds if not thousands of Christian ministers, YouTube videos, and ex-members claiming Kip Mckean's organizations to be pyramid schemes and cults. How do you think Kip Mckean got rich? How do you think Kip Mckean became a millionaire? He's been doing his thing for a long time. Back in the 60s or 70s Kip Mckean was expelled from the traditional Church of Christ for doing his thing. And, no, this is not soap boxing. I'm merely pointing out that the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean articles lack factual information; truth. I will list some of those sources that are not accepted by Wikipedia that point to the ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean having less than scrupulous practices.

https://www.gotquestions.org/International-Church-of-Christ.html http://www.reveal.org/library/activism/srausch-warning.html http://www.cultwatch.com/icc.html https://carm.org/international-church-christ-cult https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aITLu2hvwlo (This one is a Fox new report on the ICOC)

Why does a simple Google search bring up hundreds of websites that talk about the ICOC being a cult? Why would an encyclopedia even publish an article on an organization that hundreds of websites are calling a cult? Shouldn't encyclopedias stick to factual things and not controversial groups? How can you say that any article is neutral the subject is so controversial? The ICOC, ICC, and Kip Mckean pages should be deleted in my opinion. That's the problem with Wikipedia: Anyone can create an article on anything that has no facts to substantiate it. Qewr4231 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the last thing I will post here: In order for Wikipedia to be considered a bonafide academic source; a factual source, Wikipedia itself needs a cleanup of hundreds of articles on controversial topics that have no real facts substantiating/sourcing them. Controversial topics that don't have a lot of good sources shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia should they? Qewr4231 (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Qewr4231 I have a few issues with your position above if I may play devil's advocate. #1- Got Questions, Reveal, Cultwatch, Carm, etc are NOT an unbiased series of sources. Those websites are ALL anti-baptismal regeneration so of course they would have harsh things to say about a restorationist church. The Icoc is included in that spectrum. They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling." Again, I've never been to their church, but I see how that is possible to FEEL much like a outgoing , vocal, standard setting COACH might cause as well. haha #2- That doesn't mean they should be left off wiki IMO, it just means the "controversies" should be it's own consolidated section as I did once a while back in reverted edit. While their opinions are merely based off sentimentality and wavering convictions on certain topics, I do not believe they should be dismissed within an article where all 43 sources are written by a biased source. #3- Again, as Cyphoidbomb admonished you on already "There are plenty of articles at Wikipedia that cause strife. Wikipedia doesn't censor articles solely because they cause strife. Ever edited in anything related to Israel, Palestine, India or Pakistan? Gamergate? That's where you'll find strife." I'm not particularly concerned with whether or not this wiki page stays or goes, but something needs to be decided due to those 43 sources. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I've seen this subject arise several times, and it's always been the result of problematic editing by Qewr4231. Minus his editing, I doubt that we'd see much of any disruption in this area. The only solid alternative is a block, but the ban will permit constructive editing in other fields. Coachbricewilliams28's words make me suspect, however, that he sees this as a way to get rid of opposition — They are a firm discipling church which to a prideful person who hates being called to a standard as strict as the Bible may find "controlling" is hardly the way to characterise either other editors or our sources. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Nyttend Forgive me if my personal religious convictions came out in that last reply. It wasn't at him or anyone specific. Merely a generalization of people who claim Christ but cherry pick his teachings when he spoke in an all or nothing manner frequently. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Some other editors have opposed the proposal, and their thoughts have given me pause. I'm open to open to the possibility that I'm being hypersensitive to the issue, and that maybe the behavior is not severe enough to warrant a topic ban? It's obviously a powderkeg issue for him, when even in the ANI, he continues to soapbox [332][333]. As a contrary argument, he keeps citing poor sources like Cultwatch to support the "cult" claims, but then wants to lecture us about Wikipedia not being a sufficient academic resource for his doctorate program. I can't explain the disparity in logic except "emotion emotion emotion". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait, then I notice that he's campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain. [334][335][336] - I'll note that the latter might be a legitimate deletion candidate for lack of GNG establishment, but the other two I'm skeptical about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not someone who's here to build an encyclopedia: it's someone who's here for promotion. Not ordinary promotion ("topic X is worth checking into!") but negative promotion ("topic X is worth staying away from!"), and that's still promotion — and over a period of years, no less. The only reason I'm not advocating a siteban is that I have no evidence of him disrupting anything that's unrelated to this topic; if he wants to edit elsewhere, that's fine. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hijiri88 nominated one of these articles for deletion and Qewr4231 supported that on the AfD in a normal manner. Qewr4231 then also suggested on the Talk pages of the other two articles that they should also be deleted: the articles are rather similar, so there's a prima facie case that if one is up for deletion, it is not unreasonable to question whether the others should be too. Cyphoidbomb, for you to describe that as "campaigning for deletion of articles that have caused him pain" seems to me to be unhelpful language that exaggerates the situation.

Equally, Cyphoidbomb, complaining someone is being emotional when you've dragged them to AN/I seems a bit silly to me. Being emotional is quite common when someone escalates the situation to AN/I! I don't see behaviour that required administrator intervention in the first place. I suspect if everyone chilled out to begin with, then there would be a lot less emotion now!

Nyttend, you talk about problems over a "period of years", but Qewr4231 has changed his/her behaviour. S/he's not edit-warring, s/he's keeping to Talk pages. I've just looked at his/her edits over the last 18 months or so. In that period, the main problematic editing has come from elsewhere. The articles' problems today are not because of Qewr4231. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Although I appreciate the contrary opinions, I can't help but infer that you're misinterpreting the core of the complaint and the longevity, though I applaud the good faith you're assuming.

• The user was brought here for persistent talk page soapboxing against Kip McKean and related churches, not for edit-warring. The behavior has not changed. Soapboxing is a contravention of community guidelines, because it is a timesuck for editors to trudge through provocative drivel in search of constructive ideas.
• I don't think I'm wrong for describing the behavior as emotional. He's campaigned for years for McKean's organizations to be labeled "cults" and voted for article deletion with no policy/guideline-based rationale [337][338], rather because Kip McKean is a "a liar", a "fraud", an "all-around bad person" and because "These are controversial topics that are causing strife here at Wikipedia".
• Qewr4231 basically published Kip McKean's address to make some abstruse implication that McKean lives large and congregants were being fleeced out of his $3000/month fee bill. Rational?
• Paranoid accusations that because I redacted Qewr's copyright violation, I must be pro-Kip McKean. That's not a rational response, that's an emotional response. And I'm not describing this stuff as emotion to denigrate him, I'm pointing it out to illustrate that it is difficult for him to participate constructively in this area because of his strong feelings against this subject. His version of neutral wants a "cult" label.

Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Your latter two examples are from 2014-5 and don't seem relevant now. Lots of people call McKean's organisations "cults", so merely doing the same on a Talk page is not proof of NPOV violation. If voting for article deletion without a rationale got you banned, Wikipedia would lose 25% of its editors. Some of Qewr4231's recent edits have not been helpful, but I remain of the opinion that problems are being overstated. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So Moving Forward

It seems like Qewr4231 is being generally recognized as passively inappropriate at times, but not violating anything in a manner of being tbanned. As long as more eyes are on this article to prevent personal flavors of neutrality from oozing in, the majority will not care. That being said, how to we reconcile that ALL 43 citations are authored by either the church itself or the Icoc? Is this appropriate for discussion here? Just for kicks, I looked at the Icoc citation area. Same issue. ~8 +/- were non-church affiliate publishings which is better but there are still 87 total. I suppose this is a norm on Wiki? I have a few thoughts on article improvement I'll carry over the the talk page if desired. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate to discuss these matters on the relevant Talk pages. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Good advice. Let's move this convo back home. Coachbricewilliams28 (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Goodbye. I'm not editing any wikipedia talk page or article pages ever again. This is the last post you will ever read from me. Qewr4231 (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Videogameplayer99

Despite repeated warnings, User:Videogameplayer99 continues to create a large number of non notable video game articles solely based on their appearance in directories like Mobygames. Some are notable but most of them aren't. I don't doubt that it's a good faith attempt but WP:COMPETENCE is based on more than that, and they have not made an effort to learn Wikipedia guidelines about notability despite many, many deleted articles.

See also: Contributions _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It appears that they've blanked their own pages and applied G7 on them. I wouldn't have the slightest idea why they would do such a thing other than this ANI report. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: It was in response to this report, as said on my talk page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

y'all changing it or what

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.

---

Wanna make sure. Ya Mans (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

And blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:49, 17 September 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 Areaseven

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.

---

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

I don't know whether this noticeboard is pertinent to this matter. I saw this edit summary a few days ago, and I was shocked, becuase it seemed to be sarcastic. So I asked user Areaseven about it in user talk page. But user Areaseven was reverting back the before version to using the Rollbacker tool. I really want to know why user Areaseven said that, and I hope user Areaseven was suitably apologetic for comments in edit summary. So I asked user Areaseven again. In spite of Despite subsequent my requests, user Areaseven was reverting back the before version #1, #2 again to using the Rollbacker tool. In this situation, what can I do? Thanks. --Garam (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you're still making such a big deal out of this after so many days, to the point where you should apologize for harassing me over it. So let it go. - Areaseven (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Areaseven: If you apologized to me at first, I don't say to you for this matter again and again. But you did not apologize to me, until now. This is the key point. --Garam (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll tell you what - I'll apologize on the condition that you stop taking issues like this too personally. Deal? - Areaseven (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Areaseven: You think your attitude is really suited for this situation now? The matter (and your responses) is absolutely your fault. Don't you think so? I'm really uncomfortable now. :( --Garam (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This edit summary is a personal attack, or at least quite uncivil, telling others to shut up on wikipedia is not a good idea, neither is deleting comments on your talk page without answering them, although removal of comment from you own talk page IS allowed, Areaseven's pattern of ignoring massages is not good, but Garam's insistence on an apology is not really necessary.

I doubt there is much for an admin to do, as there don't seem to be any ongoing personal attacks, I suggest not arguing about a days old edit summary, that said, I am not in any way implying that "shut up" is acceptable in an edit summary. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I will admit that telling Garam to shut up was uncalled for, and I offered to apologize to him, but given his last reply, it appears that an apology is simply not enough. Like I said earlier, he's taken this issue way too personally. - Areaseven (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you are genuinely sorry you said something, then an apology for it should be unconditional - but if you are using an apology as a conditional bargaining tool, then it is not genuine and is worthless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Although removing these links may have been the correct move, it should have been removed in the regular way and certainly not with a personal attack in the edit summary. Alex Shih^Talk 13:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

So... what do you want to come out of this situation? I've already admitted to my fault, yet people still want blood or something. And for the record, my "attack" was due to Garam's overzealous deletion of information. Sure, Namu Wiki is not a reputable reference (which, BTW, was not among my edits on the Tobot article), but removing all character information was completely unnecessary. So yes, I apologize for telling him to "shut up." Anything else we need to do to close this case? - Areaseven (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You attempt to justify a PA at the same time you apologize? you should probably familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've found that John Scalzi's Apologies: What, When and How is a useful reference for figuring out when and how to make a meaningful apology. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:03, 17 September 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.

Odd discussion at BLP noticeboard

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 discussion [339] has gotten a bit strange, with speculation about the real life identities of a user, and another user talking about a phone call from a reporter related to there wiki edits and expressing fear in there personal life. It's a bit confusing and I think an admin should check it out. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

And now a server error is preventing me from getting to the BLP noticeboard to undo an outing attempt. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC) I was able to revert the outing by using the rollback button on my wachlist. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

server error fixed. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to know how it is that I made edits to Tara McDonald then a few days later get a call from (Redacted) from CBC.

As an investigator, i expect to get calls from the media, that's fine.

Had she not have mentioned McDonald, I wouldn't be worried at all.

I'm not trying to get summer's real life identity, but I just want to be sure that Summer is not (Redacted). I dno't care what Summer's real name is, but I need to know for the safety of me and my wife.

at the end of August my wife got her credit card number hacked by someone when she was buying stuff online. Hence why she put a VPN on our network, rerouting the IP to this one.

Seems to me like that's done nothing to stop (Redacted) from finding out that I made those edits.

What shuold I do?

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2017‎ (UTC)

You have repeatedly said you do not want to disclose who I am, yet you've specifically asked on several pages (including this one) if I am one named individual, including the rather absurd claim that it's OK to use the specific person's name because they are a public figure (while reverting the redaction).[340] To not disclose who I am, not asking who I am would be a good start. Cleaning up what you've already done would, at this point, involve oversighting a dozen or more edits to multiple pages.

If you are trying to not disclose who you are, I'd suggest not signing your name (assuming it is your name) to your comments. Also on page one of "What not to do" would be discussing where you used to live, when you moved, where you moved to, your profession and your wife's name.[341][342][343][344][345][346][347][348][349][350] - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Very strange case indeed. For the sake of everyone's sanity and for this gentleman's own protection, may I suggest he find a different outlet for his observations. None of which are conducive to the project or, judging by the comments on SummerPhD's Talk page, his own well-being. Karst (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind my invesigations will have quite an impact upon a plethora of Wikipedia articles.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

update

I contacted CBC, and spoke with Wendy myself, and it appears she was not on Wikipedia. As for her finding out about the Tara McDona d edits, she got an anonymous tip. I won't go after this anymore, I will leave it here .In the mean time, I Apolojize to Summer for believing they were Mesley. When you get a call like this, you tend to freak out. In 2020, a bunch of my investigations wil be published in a documentary, so look forward to that. In the mean time I'm sorry to all who had to respond to this, I'm glad I got this sorted out. thanks

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Can someon eplease close this discussion and unredact Wendy Mesley's name since Summer is not her? thanks.

Andy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.55 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that your unverified 'investigations' have no place here. Please refrain from adding them without a source. You were already warned and blocked for 36 hours by an administrator @Oshwah:, yet you continued. No only that, you seem to have n truck with our policies as they stand (as noted here). I have to say that I find that quite troublesome. Karst (talk) 09:31, 17 September 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.

Procedure violation at WP:AFD/Iceland–Turkey_relations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iceland–Turkey_relations should be closed on the basis that the nominee belives an previous decision Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey (2nd nomination) was wrongly kept. As per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review, the correct procedure is to bring the issue up at deletion review. LibStar should not be allowed to create an new deletion discussion as he has done and LibStar should not be allowed to violate procedure like this.--Snaevar (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That is pretty much untrue on all accounts. ansh666 01:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Could an admin put the "AfDs for this article:" box on the new AfD? Power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can do that, so I added it here. I hope I did it right. -- Begoon 03:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:POINT violation at Povl Riis

User:Pigsonthewing is repeatedly reverting Povl Riis to a worse version because that version includes his pet template Template:Cite Q, a template which gets references straight from Wikidata instead of using the standard, local referencing.

He is changing from (my version)

Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical ethics education in Britain, 1963–93, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. p. 187 London: The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4

to this

Lois Reynolds; Tilli Tansey, eds. (2007), Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963–1993, Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, p. 187, ISBN 978-0-85484-113-4, Wikidata Q29581753

(both versions have bluelinks and external links in them on the page), despite the fact that the source itself says:

Please cite as : Reynolds L A, Tansey E M. (eds) (2007) Medical Ethics Education in Britain, 1963-1993. Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine, vol. 31. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL.

Which also matches our standard sourcing systems much closer (e.g. the names of the authors). Apparently my version was "crud"[351].

The only reason why Pigsonthewing keeps reverting this superior cite to an inferior one is to keep his Wikidata template in the article. I started the discussion at the talk page of the article, but instead got reverted again without adressing the actual reasons why I found my version better than his version[352]. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The POINT editing is wholly Fram's; he only started to disrupt the use of Cite Q - and "repeatedly reverting" as he did so - after calling for its deletion in a tendentious discussion in which we were involved, on opposite sides, and in which he makes his antipathy to including almost anything from Wikidata clear. As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I now see that he had already been advised in that discussion, by another editor, that ""correct place to raise this discussion is on the talk page of the template", but has not done so. It also seems he's begun stalking my edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I noted at the Wikipedia talk:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs#UNREADABLE WIKIDATA REFS discussion (which I didn't start) that Povl Riis was an example of where this template gave wrong or problematic results. I corrected this. You then started reverting to your inferior version, while for some reason calling my version "crud". At the talk page discussion as well, you didn't address even one fundamental point about what was wrong with your preferred version, or indicated how mine was inferior. Starting or not starting a discussion about a template at the talk page of that template (only populated by pro-Wikidata editors in the first place) has no bearing on correcting an article. If I had replaced your version without making any improvements, you might have had a point. But reverting three times to re-insert your own inferior version with your own template is clear WP:OWN behaviour.

As for my "stalking" of your edits: I opened your contributions list, to see whether you pulled the same stunt elsewhere as well. I then accidentally misclicked (the diff you added), which I immediately, in the same minute, revertedthe diff you forgot to mention). And that's all there is to my "stalking" of your edits. Fram (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Presumably, WP:CITEVAR also applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. No idea why you would bring this up though, as your version didn't "defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page" but introduced a different style. Fram (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Only one of us has been changing a pre-existing reference from one style to another; it is not me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

...which is not what WP:CITEVAR is about. And which is not what my edit did: I changed an incorrect reference to a correct one, and at the same time made the style for the reader consistent with the other, older references, and with the style preferred by the authors of the source as well. You, on the other hand, not only initially added a reference which was inconsistent with the established style at the article, but which contained errors, but much worse reverted to your version after improvements had been made, only because they didn't match your preference, not because they didn't match the citation style of the article. You should really carefully read WP:CITEVAR before you proceed to us this as your defense. Fram (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, not Wikidata again? We shouldn't be using anything from there because it is even more like the Wild West than this place. My reading of CITEVAR aligns with that of Fram but I have seen people argue that the point is not which template is used but rather that there is a consistent output, ie: the visuals. - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fram is correct in his interpretation of citevar here. The relevant parts of WP:CITEVAR are: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference" and "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it" - with the disclaimer I have not verified if this is the case here, I am assuming what Fram says is correct regarding the article's existing style. But this is beside the point however that we should not be deferring to information on wikidata if it needs correcting. No editor on ENWP should be required to visit another project in order to effect changes on a Wikipedia article if it requires improvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

No one is or was required to visit Wikidata. Like I said above: "As my edit upon first reverting him showed, it's possible to do the kind of Wikipedia-over-Wikidata localisation he wants, using that template, and without throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. " Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just done this to fix a rather ridiculous use of Cite Q at another article. Andy, really, why are you doing this? It didn't even need another source adding to the article - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If I have to add parameters to change the editors' names, change the title, change the link to the pdf, change the journal name, add the volume number, add the page number, and change the publisher's name (assuming all of these are even possible with the current template), then what is the actual use of the cite Q template? Fram (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong venue for that discussion. Simple answer is "it makes re-using an already used citation much easier, the same as any template", but you need to take that to the deletion debate. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What deletion debate? It appears to be a comment by one user, not an MfD or similar. If you could provide a link to a true deletion debate, that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As for the issue at hand, I have a problem with this statement: "No one is or was required to visit Wikidata." What if an external link used in a cite to a Wikidata template goes dead? Then you would be required to go on Wikidata if you want to fix it. All in all, I can't say that I'm thrilled about the existence of this template. How many editors on here are going to have these templates on their watchlists, to ensure that they are not vandalized? It's just my opinion, but I fear that the Wikidata supporters are going to turn the Wikipedia community off with these features, to the point where there will be sniping between supporters of the various sites. Maybe that's what is happening here. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This short article has had several styles of referencing throughout its recent past. Both citation templates and hand-crafted citations have been present throughout most of its history, so there's no place for CITEVAR here. What has happened, though, is that Andy made 17 edits to the article on 26 June 2017, expanding it and increasing the number of sources from 3 to 5, as well as referencing more of the text. I can see no problem with those edits. Then on 12 September 2017, Fram made this edit: edit summary Correct source. What he actually did was replace the citation using {{citeQ}} with a hand crafted citation, accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital, and labelled that as "Correct source". If he had summarised it as reversed forename/surname, one might have some sympathy with his intentions, but to be deliberately obtuse in this way is uncollegial; and to run to ANI over this feeble dispute is distinctly a case of playground mentality. If Fram wants to make the case for having "surname, forename" instead of "forename surname", or for linking to a pdf instead of a webpage, the place for that is on Talk:Povl Riis, where I observe nothing more than posturing instead of rational explanation. One style may well be "worse formatting of the authors" than another, but without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge? And how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong, when one version links directly to History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group and the other version is piped to the same article ([[History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group|The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at UCL]]), is beyond me. --RexxS (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Rexxs, another Wikidata defender with whom I just happened to have an earlier acruimonious conflict, coming to present his neutral, objective, and especially wrong version of the facts. This was my first edit to that page: I did not "accidentally removed the text about Riis' time at Herlev University Hospital", so please retract that false claim. Furthermore, I did not simply "reversed forename/surname", I corrected the name of the journal and the name of the publisher, and added the volume number.

Thanks for adding the personal attack "playground mentality" though. That you only observe "posturing" at the article talk pags is your problem, I can't help you with your observational skills. "without a rationale, how can anyone expect to judge?" is true. I invite everyone to see who did provide a rationale, and who didn't, at the article talk page. "how on Earth anyone is expected to take seriously a complaint that the publisher's name is wrong[...]": when a publisher or a journal) changes its name, but something is published under the old name, then we should use that name in our referencing as well. It's no coincidence that the actual journal uses that name in its own preferred "please cite this" statement. Again, that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and can see the actual difference between two versions, instead of knee-jerk reacting. Fram (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

In which you again side-step the fact that the template can be made to display current, past or any other variant names for journal, publisher, article, or - as I have demonstrated - the series. No doubt "that such a thing is beyond you can't be helped, but perhaps then leave this discussion to people who can accurately read a diff and..." who have taken the time to develop and document the template, and who are wiling to work to continue to improve it as new use-cases emerge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is utterly obscure, Andy. I don't see how it can be used without first going to Wikidata and trying to locate things there. Someone mentioned a deletion discussion above - do you know where it is? I understand the concept of standardisation and centralised templates but it isn't going to be much of a standard if it is going to be adjusted with multiple parameters. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts too. I wouldn't trust Wikidata further than I can throw it, but we need an answer ... what is the advantage to using it over the standard, reliable, citation format? Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

For a citation that appears in exactly one Wikipedia article in exactly one Wikipedia language, not much advantage. For citations that are used repeatedly across Wikipedia, either by multiple articles or multiple translations of the same article, there is a big advantage in unifying the citation metadata so that corrections or improvements only need to be made in one place rather than piecemeal across the many copies of the citation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand that. It doesn't answer the question and it doesn't resolve the problem. Mistype one digit (even assuming I can find the thing) and I'm citing The Beano rather than the OED. It's a grand idea but it won't work: people often struggle to use the cite templates that we have, and they're nothing like as obscure as q|123456 imported from some distant project that has bugger-all control over what happens there. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pigsonthe wing, the question was not "can you change the template so that it eventually can do all these things", the question was "could the template, at the time of the editwar, present the reference like it should have done". And if the answer is "yes, by providing extra parameters for autorname, volume, page, publisher, article title, journal title, and correct url", then what is the actual benefit of using this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think there's going to be consensus that swapping templates falls under CITEVAR, though it seems more unclear whether CITEVAR should apply in at least one of the specific examples given. Doesn't seem like it's headed for admin action, though. I went to comment here but realized I was commenting on the underlying content/style/referencing dispute rather than the behavioral issues that are the subject of this thread. IMO it seems like it would be a lot more productive to close this particular thread and start an RfC on use of this template (and/or on the broader concept of "templates which pull citation data from wikidata"). Apologies if I've missed where there was one, but it's obviously contentious, and there are pretty good points on both sides. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

A broad RfC on Wikidata is urgently needed (but hard to set up correctly, "Wikidata: good or bad" is perhaps just too simplistic), but an MfD on this specific template may be warranted as well. Fram (talk) 12:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The MfD on the template is just a fait accompli where a small number of wikidata haters can destroy the possibility to use wikidata without a broader RfC. Such RfC will need to look at wider implications. For example do we want to keep our articles updated? Maybe not, as certainly we do not have the manpower to keep articles about subjects that are not located in the english-speaking realm up-to-date, while there are enaugh editors on the x-language edition of wikipedia who already do the the job there very well, and we would only need to piggyback on their efforts. Agathoclea (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me give a stern reminder that accusations of personal behavior that lack evidence are considered personal attacks, and this is definitely happening up above. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Further pointy behaviour by Pigsonthewing

Long list of diffs between Fram and Andy

Pigsonthewing has now found it necessary to thrice redact a comment I made [353][354][355], despite my clear indication that this is not wanted after the first[356] and second time[357]. Due to the many small edits Pigsonthewing made, my second revert resulted in an edit conflict, which I indicated on the page. Pigsonthewing not only saw fit to warn me about being blocked on my talk page, but also removed my comment in retaliation as well. Can someone please put a stop to this behaviour. Fram (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC) It did not simply result in "an edit conflict", you removed one of my comments entirely, along with part of a second, for which I duly and correctly warned you that repeating such behaviour may lead to a block. Your response used the edit summary "Hahaha", so presumably you think such behaviour is funny. Your later edit summary F off, involves less humour. The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal. And your comment was not "redacted", its content was completely unchanged. I merely fixed the malformed list formatting, as I have already explained to you, which is explicitly acceptable under WP:TALKO: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments... fixing list markup" (Although I wrote some of that, it's been in there for years, so clearly has community acceptance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "F off" for an edit that removed a stray "f"[358]? Seems funny to me. And since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"? "Fixing list markup" is not changing a multi-paragraph response with a line break and a ":" to indicate the start of a new paragraph, with "br" which make the text much harder to edit. "The third of my edits, quoted by you above, was a straightforward revert of that unacceptable removal" and removed text added by me as well, so how is it any better? I'm not permitted to restore my text after you have twice changed it, but you are permitted to restore your text? Anyway, from WP:TALKO, "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.". You edited, I asked you to stop, but you continued nevertheless. Doing this in general is frowned upon, doing this with someone you are already in conflict with is deliberate provocation. Fram (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC) "since when is using multiple paragraphs in a response a "list"?" Since MediaWIki started using : for marking up definition list items. I may be wrong (having only been around here since 2003), but I think that was 2002. HTH. And paragaphs are marked up with <P>, or by leaving a blank line. Again HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Meanwhile it is Fram who continues WP:POINTy behaviour, removing another instance of Cite Q, which displayed the source's correct date of publication (2002) and ISBN (9780415266062), per the publisher's own web page, claiming to "correct date and ISBN". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I invite everyone to compare the version by Pigsonthewing with my version. Make sure to follow the link to check the ISBN and date given there. If you link to a specific version of a book, it is best practice to use the same isbn and date of publication. Linking to one version (the 2003 e-book) which has one ISBN, while using the date and ISBN from another version (the printed book) is best avoided. There is nothing WP:POINTY in correcting such issues, but reverting to a worse version, like you did here (just like in the article which started this report) is indeed WP:POINT violating. I hoped that the fact that your edit there got reverted after my report here, and the fact that you got little to no support for your defenses (like incorrectly invoking CITEVAR) would have made you more cautious, but apparently not. Fram (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Fram is now edit warring at Moksha (Jainism). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Perhaps you can explain how your version, which had a.o. a link to a version of the book from a different year and with a different ISBN than the one template cite Q showed, is better than mine where this was corrected? (And of course, it takes at least two people to edit war). Fram (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC) I have edited the article precisely once; you have made the same edit, twice. Who, other than you, is edit warring? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) You reverted, I rereverted. Mine improved, yours made worse. Anyway, from WP:EDITWAR: "An edit war (About this sound listen (help·info)) occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." and "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". We have both overridden each other's contributions only once, we have both restored our preferred version only once, so technically no edit warring even happened here. So, again, before you make accusations, first read and understand the policy or guideline you are invoking. And before you do even that much, first see whether you are actually improving the result for our readers, or whether the edit you oppose is actually better. In both cases (the one that started this discussion, and this one), the version you reverted to was demonstrably worse (in content and layout) than the one you objected against. Fram (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Further examination shows Fram's claims in defence of his edits to Moksha (Jainism) to be false. The work linked to - as https://books.google.co.in/books?id=X8iAAgAAQBAJ - is not, as he claims, the eBook, but a digital copy of the 2002 paper edition carrying on its copyright page (unnumbered, but indexed as page iv by Google]) the ISBN (for the paperback) used by Cite Q (and that for the hardback - it's common practice for such works to be printed as one, and simply bound in different covers), but not the one inserted in his edit, that of the eBook. The version linked to by Cite Q also says, again on its copyright page "This edition published 2002 by Routledge", whereas the eBook was indeed published in 2003. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Cease and desist

ENOUGH. Fram and Andy, I respect you both, but your conduct here is not making either of your cases better. It was painfully obvious that you had a conflict after the first few posts, and continually bickering is pointless. I highly suggest that you a) cease changing/reverting/reversing each other's edits, and b) stop posting on this thread, until such time as allows for uninvolved editors to actually weigh in on the matter (i.e. "knock it off, both of you"). There is plenty of evidence for a decision of some manner to be made, and further back-and-forth is likely going to border on disruptive editing. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hiding the evidence of the above section as "Pointless back-and-forth bickering between Fram and Andy" is not really helping though, it is not really a text inviting anyway to take a look at the repeated problematic behaviour by Pigsonthewing. Plus; in the first section he tried to invoke "citevar" as justification, only to get told by, well, everyone that citevar didn't support his position. Now he's trying the same with "editwar". Responding to such allegations may seem like "pointless back-and-forth bickering" to you, but spelling out the actual policy or guideline in reply to incorrect accusations seems hardly pointless to me. Fram (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Your point regarding my {{cot}} is noted, and I have amended the notice. My point is still valid, however - we all know there's an issue. Let us actually discuss it without either of you making it worse. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Cite Q template deletion discussion

See: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_15#Template:Cite_Q

Multiple people above have asked if there is a deletion discussion. I'll provide an unbiased ping everyone in this discussion: User:Pigsonthewing User:Fram User:Sitush User:RexxS User:Only in death User:Giants2008 User:Black Kite User:David Eppstein User:Rhododendrites User:Agathoclea User:Nyttend Alsee (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I had a slow edit conflict with user:Primefac. Adding ping to avoid any appearance that I left them out of the pings above. Alsee (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh...

Apparently this is still a thing. They seem to have been on the same IP for at least a good seven hours. Blockity block block. Please and thank you. TJW^talk 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Dealt with, but see the "involved" thread below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

INVOLVED block for legal threats

• 185.76.9.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Talk:Spartan Race (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I've blocked this IP for making an explicit legal threat, as well as repeated personal attacks, and clearly being the same editor as Jkxyz who is already blocked for making similar legal threats on the same page. I've edited the page and participated in the dispute somewhat tangentially in the past, and was specifically named in the IP's legal threat, so per WP:INVOLVED I'm posting here for review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now also blocked 185.212.170.103 and semiprotected the talk page for a few hours. The article already has long-term semiprotection (also by me, IIRC). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a pretty long term campaign, lasting more than a year if I'm not mistaken, and involving lord only knows how many blocks. If anybody's got a better solution I'm open to suggestions. TJW^talk 15:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support the block per WP:NLT and as a sock puppet of Jkxyz --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Rockypedia

Comments include, "Why are you lying about that?" here; "your lies", "Your main motivation in this RfC ...", "If you had the balls to admit why you're really pushing this ...", all found in talk page here. Rockypedia has now said "So I'm going to bow out now and let someone else handle your lies ..." but I thought if someone in authority talkted to him it might do some good.

Context is a section in 2017 Berkeley protests about a lefty demonstrator woman who was punched out by a neo-nazi leader, whose supporters (the neo-nazi's) then doxxed her and revealed very personal information about her. Rockypedia seems to think I am in league with her right-wing supporters. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

BoogaLouie (talk) has persisted for the past few weeks in trying to add the name of a woman doxxed by white supremacists to the Berkeley protests article. Those edits are clear evidence that he's pushing a POV found only on alt-right and white supremacist blogs and forums, all while he feigns innocence and claims he's just trying to add relevant information to the article, even though numerous editors have warned him about his behavior. Per WP:DUCK, I make no apologies about clearly stating, in his latest attempt (an RfC), what his real motivations are, and I want everyone that sees his RfC to know it. There's no room here for insinuating good faith while his real objective is exactly the same as those of the white nationalists and white supremacists that have already doxxed that woman all over the Internet. That's all I have to say. Rockypedia (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure even if I am all these bad things it doesn't excuse personal attacks, but I will explain my case anyway:

While it is true I did include citations (I think 2) from sites doxxing her (my edit said that the sites were doxxing her and the cites were sources. None the personal information from the sites was included in my edit of the article), that I reverted a deletion of my edit once and the edit included her name and the cites, and that I got no support from editors in the talk page — some of these other claims are delusional. I am not attempting to push some alt-right and white supremacist POV, but pointing out that Snopes found their claims false. The woman's name can be found in a number of WP:RS sources. In any case I am doing a RfC on the issue of including her name and will abide by the results. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Regardless of any rights or wrongs of this case, it does need to be stated that Rockypedia does not have a good history on Wikipedia. Reference should be made to his obscene comments to edits on the Ted Bundy article and his "contribution" history, some of which are correct - but made in entirely the wrong manner. Let's please contribute and comment constructively. David J Johnson (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a drive-by WP:BATTLEGROUND edit by David J Johnson. Notice that he's never edited the Berkeley protest article, but is apparently stalking me in retaliation for two RfC's that I started after he edit-warred on the Ted Bundy article. Note also that both RfC's did not come out the way he wanted them to, and he's apparently now seeking revenge by weighing in here in an attempt to smear me. Rockypedia (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"an attempt to smear me" — now see, this is the problem. Personal attacks. They're not allowed in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

My contribution here was simply to alert the community to Rockypedia's previous attitude when "contributing" to the encyclopedia. I believe the WP:BATTLEGROUND tag is more appropriate to Rockypedia's history. Nor have I engaged in "edit warring". As for the accusation of "stalking", I have more important tasks than that, it is just that this page is on my personal Watchlist. This users comment is another of his(?) personal attacks on other editors. I have no further comment to make. David J Johnson (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Rockypedia: WP:DUCK is about behavioral evidence in sock puppetry cases. It doesn't give you the right to call someone a liar. If you think someone is behaving disruptively, file a complaint here (with evidence in the form of diffs). @BoogaLouie: don't link to attack sites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To further add to that second point: just because something is in WP:RS doesn't mean that we should include it, especially if it's something like the name of a private citizen who was doxxed. My take on BLP here is to use common sense and err on the side of non-inclusion. ansh666 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So WP:DUCK only applies to sockpuppets, fine. What policy would you cite after you saw these edits? Five of them had to be redacted by admins - five! - and in this RfC, BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. You tell me - what do you make of that? Does that look like editing in good faith to you? Rockypedia (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not about personal attacks but I think I better defend myself:

• "Five of them had to be redacted by admins".

I made an edit, cleaned it up it, it was deleted. Made my case in the talk page and restored my edit, that was deleted (that's 3 redacted edits). On the talk page I think I added a proposed revision but I can't remember and now it's scrubbed. But in the two talk page edits I agreed to not include the cites attacking the unnamed woman that were in my earlier edits. (see here where I say: "While I think the two "unusable sources" that Grayfell opposes are legit , I propose eliminating them but leaving snopes, cbs, ny times and mother jones citations about the antifa girl." It's dated about the same time (around 23:00, 23 August 2017) as the scrubbed edits. The "unusable sources" are the rightwing sites attacking the antifa girl that -- I thought -- were legit as use for sources demonstrating that the antifa girl was being doxxed.) Why were these scrubbed? They mentioned the woman's name.

• "BoogaLouie is attempting to add the exact same information that was redacted, information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums",

this is simply not true! See for yourself in my RfC here. I include the white supremecist claim only along with the scopes article that rates it "not true". I have explained it to Rockypedia several times. such as here down the page a bunch of lines (".... I would further ask you how including the fact checking that debunks his defenders' claim that he was preventing the unnamed woman from throwing a deadly weapon would hurt the unnamed woman or help him in any way????")

IMHO I feel I have no choice but to keep replying to these accusations (which along with being untrue essentially accuse me of lying in the aid of neo-nazis) and it boarders on harassment. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"along with being untrue" ?? Those edits were redacted because the woman's name was in them. You started an RfC with the purpose of adding the woman's name. You have a strange definition of "untrue". Rockypedia (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This was "information that is currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums"? The woman has given interviews and talked to New York Times, Mother Jones where her name was used. Here name is not "currently only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums". This is what I mean by untrue. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a another distortion of the truth (also sometimes known as a "lie") - You know full well that those sources were discussed, and none of them talked about the context that you were trying to add; ie that Nathan Domigo punched a woman carrying an explosive in a bottle, which absolutely is only propogated by white supremacist blogs and forums. But we're going in circles; this was explained to you on the article talk page, multiple times, that's why your edits were redacted, and yet you still continue to press your POV-based edits with the current RfC. Rockypedia (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Further context BoogaLouie's doxxing-attempt RfC is currently running at 9 editors opposed to it, and 2 for it (including BoogaLouie himself). To quote Grayfell's excellent point in that RfC, "Your stated goal is exactly opposite to the end result of your actions, regardless of your true intentions." He's much more measured (and a lot smarter) than I am; regardless, I speak plainly and accurately when I describe what BoogaLouie is trying to do, and I'm basically saying the same thing, with less tact. Sorry for being so direct. Rockypedia (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Grayfell agrees with you. There's just the little matter of explaining how including the results of scopes fact checking would be bring an "end result" "exactly opposite" of my "stated goal". It makes no sense.--BoogaLouie (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to clarify:

Shoehorning in this Snopes article would be drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE outlets, and tepidly rejected by everyone else. If BoogaLouie's intention is to debunk this theory, their actions significantly inflate its relative importance by drawing attention to a minor incident which led to sustained harassment. What, exactly, is this supposed to accomplish in an article about a series of protests in Berkeley, California? Playing WP:CIVILPOV games doesn't change that this is functionally abetting harassment.

I don't accept that BoogaLouie doesn't understand this, especially since multiple editors have spent weeks trying to explain it to them. It doesn't really matter, though. The end result is the same: BoogaLouie is attempting to draw dramatically more attention to a person who has been the target of a coordinated harassment campaign. This campaign started because she was punched by a white nationalist. The extremely unreliable attack sources BoogaLouie originally tried to add demonstrate a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:CIVILPOV, drawing attention to a flimsy theory fiercely championed by WP:FRINGE, making a serious lapse in judgement to the point of undermining good faith, ignoring the wisdom of multiple editors, playing stupid in the service of Nazis, etc. This has gotten way past complaining about a personal attack and is now a defense against charges of calculated dishonesty and Neo-Nazi sympathies. So would my proposed edit addition to the article have abetted harassment by drawing "attention to a flimsy theory"? or undermined it? Read it below and decide for yourself.

The proposed edit is similar to what I originally added to the article and the whole idea was recently voted down as a RfC. I think the no votes were in error but I'm not going to contest the decision. Now I'm just trying to defend my reputation against Grayfell and Rockpedia.

(note: the proposed edit adds to this April 15 section of 2017 Berkeley protests - article. Only two paragraphs -- "Within a short time after ..." and "Supporters of Nathan Damigo ..." -- posted below are proposed additions, the rest are already in the article)

During the event, Nathan Damigo—a 30-year-old California State University, Stanislaus student and the founder of the white supremacist group Identity Evropa—punched a woman in the face (later identified as[name deleted]) and then ran into the crowd. The attack was captured on video and prompted calls for Damigo's arrest or expulsion.

Within a short time after the attack [name deleted] was "doxxed" by supporters of Damigo and the rally who sent "more than 1,500" harassing or threatening messages to her and publicized her home address and her parents contact information.

Supporters of Nathan Damigo accused her of "holding an explosive device made from a glass bottle" and maintain Damigo prevented her from throwing it when she was punched, however Snopes factchecking site found [name deleted] was not arrested over the incident, that observers found no M80s being stuffed inside glass bottles at the rally, and that [name deleted]'s hands were empty at the time she was punched by Damigo in the publicized images, and no indication of anything in a bottle [name deleted] was holding when Damigo punched her earlier in the melee.

Cal State Stanislaus stated that that they would investigate Damigo.

References

Inclusion of this much on the incident in question strikes me as uncalled for and tangential. It seems kind of shoehorning in WP:BLP1E in to a more notable article. Inclusion of the name of the woman in question strikes me as vile. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rockypedia: Please read, understand and consider WP:AGF; @BoogaLouie: Please read, understand and consider WP:UNDUE. Paul August ☎ 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles copied from Wikia

I've been dealing with a certain sockmaster, Ctway, for a few years now. To give a brief summary, they create tons of low-quality, poorly sourced, and factually suspect articles about firearms and sometimes other military equipment. During the most recent round of emptying the sock drawer and AfDing their creations, Icewhiz found that several articles that I'd nominated were copied from a Wikia wiki. Investigating further, I found that Ctway's articles were often (but not always) created or greatly expanded by a user there named Cutaway (CuTaWAY) and then copied over nearly exactly (excluding images, which I now realize are often added as hyperlinks instead of a gallery) - or occasionally the other way around. For example, BSA Autorifle was worked on by Cutaway in 2016, then copied over verbatim to BSA Autorifle in one edit this year by a Ctway sock. I did a bit more digging, and the second article I looked at (Union Automatic Revolver) from the original sock report was created the same day on both wikis, with identical content: en-wiki and guns.wikia on 12 August 2010. Given that Cutaway was created on guns.wikia in 2008 and the first account mentioned in the SPI was created in 2009 though not blocked/confirmed for lack of CU data, the issues probably go back at least that far (and now I'm marvelling at how coincidental it is that Ctway was the account that the SPI was filed under, and wondering if the filer who is sadly now inactive knew about all of this at the time). Cutaway also has a comment on their Message Wall (aka talk page) from a guns.wikia admin reminding them to not copy articles from Wikipedia; that admin seems to have an active account here as well, Grunty89, so I'll invite him to comment too. It would probably also be nice if there was a way for Cutaway to participate in this discussion, but they probably don't have an active sock yet after the last batch was whacked, so meh.

So, after all that, the question is: is copying content from Wikia, which I believe shares the same CC-by-SA 3.0 license with Wikipedia, okay, or should it be treated as any other copyvio? Some of it seems to be copying their own work between wikis, so there isn't necessarily even an issue regarding maintaining attribution, but at the same time many of them have other contributors on Wikia or here. I wouldn't want to have to go through the probably thousands of articles these socks have created looking for possible copyvio to delete, but I feel like it may unfortunately be necessary. ansh666 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My personal understanding is that it is kosher to copy/replicate one's own work (as the creator retains the copyright), but not kosher to copy someone else's (even on-wiki - you need a copy-right edit summary when copying substantial amounts of text between on-wiki articles). How you go about proving the sock's instance on Wikipedia is the same as on Wikia (though circumstantial evidence would seem to imply this at least for some of these copies) - is a different matter. Note that in some instances, e.g. BSA Autorifle - other users (in this case AugFC in 2015) - worked on the article in addition to Cutaway (so in this case, it is possibly a copyvio regarding content from AugFC if text survived). I do however, believe, that if it CC-by-SA-3.0 we don't have to blank - just attribute (e.g. dummy edit) - but not 100% sure.Icewhiz (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think if you are not sure then it could be better to discuss at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My fairly uninformed understanding is that if Wikia shares the same license as Wikipedia, then it's okay to copy as long as the original contribution is attributed, which can be done after the fact with a template on the article's talk page. Essentially follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Copying from other Wikimedia projects, except you'll probably have to replace any attribution templates with a simple link to the source edit on the Wikia project. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What I normally do is add a blurb at the bottom like this example: Content in this article was copied from Simba the King Lion at Mondo World Wikia, which is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 (Unported) (CC-BY-SA 3.0) license. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hrm...that's good to know, though the thought of going through the hundreds if not thousands of these articles is...terrifying, to say the least. Though at least I think we've now found a potentially permanent point of contact with them; communication in the past has been fairly difficult because they tend to use so many throwaways. ansh666 09:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Can someone explain why it's not sufficient to simply name the CC-licensed source you're copying from in the edit summary as you bring the material in? EEng 11:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to be more specific to link the revision and be clear somewhere where it can be seen (edit summ or a talk page template) that the material was copied from (url to diff at Wikia), but that's effectively it for CC-BY licensed material. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • We do need to be careful with Wikia content. While the overwhelming majority of Wikia wikis are licensed under CC-BY-SA, there are some that have opted for different licensing (usually CC-BY-NC-SA), which I believe is incompatible with Wikipedia's license. If I am mistaken about that, please correct me, but [359] doesn't list either license as compatible with the other, so I am currently operating under the assumption that they are not. Cthomas3 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Good to know. Lucky (or unlucky) for us, guns.wikia uses CC-BY-SA. ansh666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

So this discussion leads me to another question: is WP:CCI a good place to go to get more eyes on and deal with this type of thing? Wikipedia:Copyright problems as Emir suggests seems to be for single articles. ansh666 23:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Censoring of diverse points of view on the Child Pornorgraphy 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.

---

Hello.

I have had my opinion that there is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NPV, WP:POV, WP:NEUTRAL posted on the page's talk page removed by user "Flyer22_Reborn" I am asking for a temporarly ban for this user as it is against Wikipedia's policy to wantonly remove another user's discussion from the TALK page of an article that one does not agree with. This hurts wikipedia's foundations of transperency, honesty and inclusion of diverse view points.

"Your asinine ramblings are not WP:TALK material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)"

Thank you.

NPOVwarriorprincess (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

As seen here and here, I did indeed "censor" this WP:Sock/troll. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• A WP:BOOMERANG is definitely coming here. Please note, NPOVwarriorprincess, that it is not part of Wikipedia's mission to present "diverse view points". Undoubtedly, there are some people in the world who believe that it is the right of a parent to kill disobedient children, or that drinking bleach is healthy, or that the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against a disfavored ethnic group is a good idea. Wikipedia has no obligation to reflect such viewpoints in its own voice just because they can be proved to exist. bd2412 T 03:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'd like to know a bit more about parents' rights to kill disobedient children. Might be handy in future. EEng 04:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21" One of the countless reasons why Biblical literalism is a bankrupt ideology, EEng. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. EEng 04:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You must be a parent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness you are not my dad, EEng. I would have been toast at age 19. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I eat guys like you for breakfast! EEng 12:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support RBI for OP per BD2412. Pretty sure WMF will be fine without her donations. John from Idegon (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Just because other countries of the world want to jump off a bridge doesn't make it right. That argument doesn't hold water, and NPOVwarriorprincess is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Sock puppetry...this is Boilingorangejuice. Indeffed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:45, 18 September 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_Discoverer reaches conclusions from newsarticles that are clearly not stated in those 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.

---

Please look into @The_Discoverer who has reached conclusion on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanatan_Sanstha that are not reported or implied in the news articles cited. The editor definitely shows an anti-Hindu slant, and clearly indicates that S/he is in favor of the Catholic Church in India. Everyone is free to pursue what they choose is appropriate, however when that choice colors their editing, then WIKI has to provide oversight. I am sure that you deal with this issue many times a day, everyday. Thank you172.125.126.89 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) That's a content dispute. Take it to the talk page. Kleuske (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

These allegations are patent nonsense. I have not done a single edit related to Hinduism per se, leave alone having an anti-Hindu slant. All my edits are strongly supported by the cited reliable sources, for nearly every sentence. I challenge 172.125.126.89 to provide diffs to support his/her claims. Show us a single statement that is not directly supported by the sources. 04:10, 18 September 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.

178.222.124.206

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.

---

Please could someone block here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:11, 18 September 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.

Request block of User:Johnvr4

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've restored this thread, which was archived by a bot without having been closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Johnvr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request a block of User:Johnvr4 under WP:NOTHERE. To quote User:Nick-D in March this year, Johnvr4 "doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. ..I believe that a block would be justified by [his] repeated attempts to create articles which are unreliable and inability to listen and respond to the concerns which multiple editors have raised about them .. . Fundamentally, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for the stuff [Johnvr4] want[s] to publish, or that [his] approach to doing so is in line with Wikipedia's collaborative ethos." (User talk:Nick-D#U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan's southern islands). Johnvr4 is repeatedly trying to create articles which are severely biased against the U.S. government's view on things, and distorts sources to do so. This was raised at the original Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Red Hat by User:Moe Epsilon, in regard to a reference which was distorted [360], at User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie, and at U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan over the reasons for removal of nuclear weapons from Okinawa (partially due to a perceived vulnerability to terrorism, which Johnvr4 repeated tried to downgrade from the article). He also is repeatedly unable or unwilling to recognise a consensus formed against him [361] and has recreated his preferred version of deleted content three times in his sandbox after an MfD was closed against him (see User talk:Johnvr4#Red Hat content, and further advisory by User:RoySmith (User talk:Johnvr4#Recreation warning). Another example of concerns about his editing style came from User:AustralianRupert at [362]. This user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in line with WP's principals, and I kindly request that he be blocked from further editing. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Power~enwiki (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support for now I'm still not fully done reading below, so I'll put this in for now. —JJB^ers 01:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Additional comment: at [363] Moe Epsilon said: "You have only edited a small handful of article topics and I can't look through your editing history and find an example of you making major changes to an article and then not having a major dispute on the talk page. Your contributions have either been deleted outright, reverted partially or debated upon heavily. That is concerning. I told you back in 2014 that was concerning because I took a single reference you supplied, which was used several times in your writing, and it wasn't factually accurate according to what the references said." which again is another indicator of the problems this user causes. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Please pardon my interruption but I'd like to inform this discussion of Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests forOperation Red Hat where the history of the text that User:Moe Epsilon once accused me of "cooking up in my spare time" as a reason for AfD as well as Bucksohot06 assertions about it in MfD, DRV, and here will soon be visible again. those editors and others had been told very clearly the assertion he continues to put forth about submitting that text is untrue. Buckshot06 restored that very text. The restored page history will make those misrepresentations apparent despite his stated opposition to restoring it.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Sincerely regretful support from an involved party. I actually sort of like John. My second discussion with him on my talk page indicates that he can carry on a concise and non-bludgeoning discussion when he chooses to. He was very polite about accidentally referring to me as "he" instead of "she", and came to my talk page to apologize about feeling like he'd villified me/dragged me into this mess. I genuinely don't think John is being intentionally disruptive just for the sake of causing problems. I think if we could get him to edit about anything else that he didn't have such a strong passion for, he'd be a great contributor. I think the problem is that he has such an obsessive passion for how he sees Red Hat/weapons deployment/related topics that he gets complete tunnel vision and blocks out anything that contradicts his own view of the topic and our policies here. He gets frustrated that we can't see what he sees, leading him to produce ever-lengthier posts trying to convey his point but instead alienating his intended audience in the process. I don't know that there is a viable alternative to blocking, possibly save a broadly-construed topic ban for anything related to Red Hat/weapons deployment/similar. But I admit I have doubts as to whether that would be effective or merely a postponement of a block. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if my comment here is appropriate but I am OCD and spectrum. But not just on any one particular issue. I also have some nerve damage, adrenal tumor that jacks me up, and I nearly failed typing (sorry for the typos- I'm disabled). I would consider myself an expert on the material simply because I have read every reliable source I had cited (there were like 250) and did not synthesize if I had to use a public domain report or lesser primary source until a better one is found. Numerous times I have suggested to simply follow our sources or allow addition of a new ones as a compromise to end every dispute. However, that literally never ever happens with said editor as I have documented repeatedly. I was/am frustrated, mouthed off a bit too. To nearly everyone. I was actually shaking after it was nominated and then deleted. I apologize again.Johnvr4 (talk) 05:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've taken a look at a randomish sampling of editing over the last few months and don't feel that a NOTHERE argument applies. Obviously, there is some less than optimum pugnacity with the editing, but this appears to be a good faith editor adding sourced content. Carrite (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually hatted a discussion on PMC's talk where Johnvr4 was going over oard, but he came back and had a reasonable conversation. I'm not convinced that the very WP:INVOLVED Admin is correctly asessing this situation. We don't have to follow the US Govt view of things and accusations American is editing against American seems hard to believe. Perhaps BuckShot06 needs to lay off Johnvr4 and Nohnvr4 should edit other topics. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Having followed this since the original AFD, I can safely say this is probably the eventual route that will have be taken. If he is not blocked, then a topic ban will definitely need to be implemented, broad-construed to prevent him from working on anything related to Operation Red Hat and military-based articles. John has a very hard time communicating concerns and actually addressing problems with his content, and this is a long standing issue. @Carrite: I feel like John is here to add sourced content as well, however his content is misleading or synthesized at times, and several editors have addressed that. It's a problem that goes back to the days of him first editing five years ago on the same topic. His behavior hasn't changed much and his problematic content went from being on the main articles to his sandboxes, which he has attempted to write for four years now with little to no improvement to follow Wikipedia standards (which is what the MFD was about). If John is not willing to take a topic ban and edit other topics, then this has to be the route to take because he is so engulfed in this behavior around these topics that it is now disruptive. I only support a block now because the few times I saw John edit outside his usual few articles, it ended up in content disputes as well and having content disputes this frequently is toxic. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Can't support the NOTHERE assertion as I don't feel anything has been presented to support it. Let's start by removing the useless stuff from the equation, the discussion on Nick-D's talk page can be succinctly summarised as "NOTHERE block and be done with it". This is not really helpful to this discussion. Provide me with a reason to support the NOTHERE assertion that does not stem from a NOTHERE assertion. The AfD from 2013 is unhelpful because, while it demonstrates (possibly) incompetence or poor source utilization it doesn't do anything even close to demonstrate NOTHERE (not to mention it was four years ago). Then there's the discussion on John's page (User_talk:Johnvr4#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie) that eventually boils down to, the sources don't use the word interceptor therefore don't use the word interceptor. Everything else was cleared up by quotes from the actual sources, or at least appears to have been based on Buckshot's response; [t]hanks for these. Clearly inteceptor isn't referenced. I will remove the words 'interceptor' etc, ... , and substitute with 'hydrogen-bomb-armed'. I mean this discussion if anything is demonstrative of the "here" part of NOTHERE. Then, last but not least, I'm actually presented with a concern that could be addressed. So let me address it; recreation of a procedurally deleted article that has undergone deletion review that supported the original deletion closure is valid grounds to argue disruptive editing. Please don't do that again. Sometimes, you'll have to accept that your work is not suitable for the encyclopaedia. Now, I'm going to take a moment to address something that was sort of brought up tangentially, but, isn't the central concern. Concern: I find that Johnvr4 has a problem maintaining composure and civility when discussing (or arguing) with other editors. This is not helpful to them or others. For example, the discussion on Johnvr4's talk page that I mention John actually asserts that they will edit war for their preferred version because of perceived incompetence on the part of Buckshot06. Evidence; ... I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. In conclusion, I don't see NOTHERE as presented, but, I do see civility and composure issues that may need some form of addressing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The 2013 AfD is actually highly relevant, as JohnVR4 has kept trying to recreate this article (in various forms) despite the concerns raised in the AfD and its result, and the many subsequent discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
    • If I may interject, the appropriate link to that discussion is here :Air defense interceptors/Genie The argument was whether the Interceptor came directly from the original source I used- clearly it did yet the other editor would not acknowledge the obvious fact that the word was in that source despite thanking me for sources. I sort of citation bombed him with sources that quote F-100s, with Nukes, Genies at Naha on Alert as well as most of the WP main pages that also had it because he was being so absurd. And we are here talking about it now simply because he said a word is not there in that source. But it is and always has been. It was an Edit War and that concern was 100% his absurdity and I warned him to never ever try to fight anyone over that point. Yet that is precisely what he did today! Please please explore it further! And look at the reverts made that are contrary to reliable sources. He's done that exact same thing multiple times while stating in MfD that I never improved or condensed any material from my sandbox! That main space material was moved from my sandbox. Johnvr4 (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
      • The context for the quote and my prediction of an edit war was in response to Buckshot06's threats and actions to keep removing our very highly reliably sourced content: "You need a source for nuclear-armed interceptors standing ready for scrambling on Okinawa, and until you provide that, I've remove the paragraph again. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)" I hope that addresses (or characterizes) Mr rnddude's concern.

I thought I was pretty nice about it in warning him given the wall I was beating my head against by simply continuing to even interact with that editor. The full quote was: "...Do not make me pull out quotes! I don't have time for such silliness. No one does. If you cant or won't read the sources, I'll keep putting it back in. An edit war will ensue and your failure to read sources or discuss until now...and assertions (like those above) about the alleged lack of a similar passage in sources will be your huge problem. So I'm going to formally warn you now. Stop and review the sources that you've said you already reviewed. If you had done so, we would not be having this discussion!". Johnvr4 (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC) 20:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I have only just remembered that Buckshot06 deleted that very source on Mar, 20. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Huh, you're right. It's clear as day on the 1981 CDI article. I had missed it both on your talk page and in the article; During the late 1950s and early 1960s the F-100 Super Sabre served as a primary interceptor. On top of that the Mindling/Bolton source explicitly states that F-100s were present at Okinawa and were nuclear arms equipped. That said, content is an issue that two people can mutually resolve if they are willing to discuss. Content problems shouldn't be the reason we are here. There are better ways to deal with these kinds of issues than outright edit-warring too. One, you can ask for a WP:3O. Two, you can withhold the material and discuss on the talk page (this was done, both at your talk and at the article talk, so kudos for that). Three, if need be, you can do and RfC. I've found a section (argument really) that I'm going to go read through. I am getting more lost, rather than less, as to what the issue actually is. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support Block. JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material. This includes material which is not supported by the citations provided, as well as cherry picking material and developing large articles which are nothing but WP:SYNTH - to such an extent that they can't even be reduced to stubs. As noted in the post at the top of this discussion, multiple interventions by a large number of editors in good standing have not been successful in persuading him to change his ways or even seriously acknowledge that his editing is problematic. I think it's fair to say that the editors who have been involved with JohnVR4 have exhausted their patience with him. As he is not editing Wikipedia in good faith or in a collaborative way, he should be blocked to prevent further edits which post misleading information and disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are clearly problems here, but I'm convinced that JohnVR4 has good intentions and genuinely believes his additions are beneficial to the encyclopedia, and is not deliberately trying to push inaccuracies and POV (even if that might at times be the result). As such, I don't see that WP:NOTHERE is applicable - "Difficulty, in good faith, with conduct norms" is given as a specific "not not here" example. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think a topic ban would stand a better chance of consensus, if someone were to propose one with an appropriate scope. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:NOTHERE is for users who come here purely to troll other wikipedians. While his edits/comments might cause problems, this is a good faith editor, who needs to improve some aspects of his editing. Perhaps a short topic ban, so he can learn to edit well on subject that he isn't closely connected to might help. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. (involved editor) In one of the last interactions with Buckshot06 (when I thought we parted ways) I left him this message[364]: "...We just seem to bring out the worst in each other and only produce long discussion with out agreement, and embarrass each other then feel bad, over human errors. I tried to explain to you myself numerous times that our sources need to be looked at closely. The fact is that three other editors also looked at that concern and could not have missed it then failed to point that out to you when you asked, probably did disservice to both you and to I. We unnecessarily wasted a lot of time on this. The way I have interacted with you since was a direct reflection of my frustration in feeling that you are also difficult to work because you refused to look at the sources to verify content. If our paths cross in the future I hope that the interaction will be constructive and fruitful and not at all like many of our previous interactions. Peace. Johnvr4 (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately, as one might note, what I had suggested and hoped is not even remotely what has happened since. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Having had a look at Johnvr4's edits I have to agree with Nick-D that "JohnVR4 is essentially a single purpose editor whose contributions are focused on adding inaccurate and POV pushing material." However the discussion here shows that he is eager to continue as an editor on wikipedia. My proposal would be a topic ban for all nuclear weapons and military in Japan related articles; with an additional warning that any further disruption of wikipedia will result in an immediate block. noclador (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Topic ban at most, since this is topical and there's no indication the editor is WP:NOTHERE, i.e. not generally constructive and trying to do the right thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose block. JOhnvr4 is clearly here to be a contributing editor, but he really needs to heed advice from the more experienced editors that have been trying to help him. I would not oppose a short term topic ban to help him get to grips in subjects outside of this topic area. Mentorship may also be an option. Blackmane (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hounding of JohnVR4, userspace and main space submissions by Buckshot06

Buckshot06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Buckshot06 and I have longstanding, heated and unresolved content disputes. He has characterized the disputes as me creating Fake articles and has made numerous baseless policy concerns in talk and recently at Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat as well as to support his arguments in discussions. I have responded to his faulty assertions here:DRV JohnVR4 user spaces and at my talk page. His near-pathological misrepresentations take walls of my text to explain away and as a result my concerns are ignored most recently at WP:Deletion_review/Log/2017_August_30. He has repeatedly threatened to Mfd my userspace draft that was actively being edited 1.5 hours before he nominated it over obviously ridiculous concerns or assertions (such as those he raised in the previous section). His assertions are easily disproved in discussion, diffs, quotes, sources, and every other available method to Wikipedia editors.

Despite my numerous pleas, Buckshot06 repeatedly refuses to read or acknowledge majority and minority opinions in cited reliable sources and then battles over text based upon his strong views and advanced degrees instead of reviewing the reliable sources (especially the newer ones) or opening a content dispute where our issues should be publicly resolved rather than being reverted or deleted outright or having an edit war. He then accuses me of not listening or a plethora or other dubious accusations. I wanted to work together and have asked for help but is is clear that Buckshot06 and I cannot see eye to eye and never will. We have decided to stay away from each other and he has now apparently followed up on a second one of his past (and also ridiculous) threats by opening the above section. This is the third time he has Accused me of an Anti DoD/US stance without the slightest merit and he does not seem to realize that I write from a reliable and documented source standpoint and most importantly, I am from U.S. a military family, from the U.S., which I still support (despite our country's current regime embarrassment). I take I great offense at his third anti-Us accusation (I warned him about it before) as well as his accusation that my thousands of edits were all in bad faith and do not improve Wikipedia -which he has already contradicted in his own words more times than I can count.

That editor has near-pathological pattern of misrepresentation including in his misleading explanations of the links he provided in the above section. On the advisory by User:Moe Epsilon- For example, one editor User:Moe_Epsilon at the [AFD] fabricated a concern about my editing and claimed "I cooked something up." Then that editor made all types of other ridiculous assertions that are disproved by a source (plus the ones already mentioned) which I added only minutes before Buckshot06 deleted the entire sandbox4 draft just this week! The Diffs that were deleted (which I cannot see because I am not an administrator) would prove that I did not write that passage- but there is no just way to see it now since all the diffs are gone. (Well not just yet anyway...Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New_requests) The diffs would prove that Buckshot06 himself put that nonsense that got the page deleted right back on the main space and abused all of the sources he cited.[365] Note also that Buckshot06's POV version of Operation Red Hat is missing most of the majority and minority viewpoints in every single one of the sources he has cited.

I owe User:Moe Epsilon a bit of an apology. to clarify all my previous comments, he in fact did not accuse me of writing the night move passage at AfD. That was the false assertion of an IP editor. I sincerely apologize for any representation that connecting Moe's comment of cooking stuff up and the faulty concern that I submitted the passage about moves of chemicals at night. Sorry for that mix up Moe. Johnvr4 (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

On the advisory by User:RoySmith- User_talk:RoySmith#Ignoring_of_views_at_DRV, Administrators noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts

BuckShot06 makes various entirely merritless claims which I've already disproved to him. In the examples he provided he has fiercely contested moves from my sandbox and is still actively contesting them which proves his main issues with me is a content dispute where he wont acknowledge what a reliable source says (and Note his totally disproved POV complaint) but more importantly his assertions that my sandbox draft where the material is coming from has not been improved nor condensed are utterly absurd: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Terrorist_threat_and_weapons_removed_in_1972-_Apparent_POV and here: Talk:U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan#Air_defense_interceptors.2FGenie

Other highly relevant links would be:

1. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment
2. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_again
3. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Operation_Red_Hat,
4. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Operation_Red_Hat,
5. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_19#Userspace_copy_of_Red_Hat,
6. User_talk:Mark_Arsten#Operation_Red_Hat_Suggestion_Comment,
7. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review
8. User_talk:Nick-D#OP_RED_HAT_ongoing_issue_notification
9. User_talk:Nick-D#Red_Hat_material_move_to_MK.2FSEARCH.3F
10. User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands
11. Deleted message
12. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_137#Massive_2-part_Okinawa_draft
13. "Every one of these concerns are real, now, and valid" deleted comment. (re:this discussion) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
14. User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review Prior to condensing sandbox In response, to these comments I received, I had thereafter moved out about 1/3 of the sandbox content as well as the reduced the scope then split the remainder in User:Johnvr4/sandbox in half.

Note these exchanges among others: "When I file the AN/I over your WP:OR, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES reliance, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:SYNTH, and battleground reverting editing, you will be notified, in accordance with policy. In my considered opinion, you should be writing research pieces for publication that allow you to state polemics, not trying to operate on a site that is supposed to be neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

"...Given your threat of an apparently inevitable pending ANI, why don't we just file that ANI case right now over the use of sources, edit warring, and POV on this page? Per your assertion, can you show me in this article any of My OR, or an incorrect use of primary sources, POV, OWN, or Synth? These unfounded assertions are going to be looked at under a microscope. Have you forgotten the main section to this sub-section? It is titled: Terrorist threat and weapons removed in 1972- Apparent POV ? Johnvr4 (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

Also: "...I remain baffled about how I could be 'cutting you out' after pleading with you immediately above to edit the mainspace article. Your options are twofold: remain editing only your userspace draft, which is not really what a userspace draft is for, or actually get involved in the mainspace. Please engage with me, here or elsewhere, to tell me about well sourced issues which ought to be in the mainspace article, and we can get them in there!! Not every connected issue that you write about in your userspace may end up in the mainspace, but I can certainly see there are issues you write about which ought to be mainspaced. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [366]

"I've already said how I believe most of what you have left under Red Hat actually belongs under 112 (or possibly under Project Deseret), and I've laid out my reasons, none of which are invalidated by further things you've said, or by the Chemical Weapons Movement History Compilation, as far as I've scanned it so far. But never mind -- I will cut straight to the chase. Would you prefer I start a WP:MFD (miscellany for deletion) discussion on your preferred, but disputed, version of the article in your sandbox, in line with WP:FAKEARTICLE, not in six months as I had intended to propose, but now? Then we'll get this cleared up sooner rather than later. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)"

1. Project 112 Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project 112 move from sand box on March 16, 2017
2. Deseret Test Center Was moved out from my sandbox three days PRIOR to his demands! Project Deseret move from Sandbox on March 16, 2017
3. U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Was moved out from my sandbox two days PRIOR to his demands! U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan Created from my sandbox on March 17, 2017
4. United States military anti-plant research Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! United States military anti-plant research Created from my sandbox on March 18, 2017
5. Project MKUltra Was moved out from my sandbox one day PRIOR to his demands! Project MKUltra move from Sandbox on March 18, 2017
6. 1968 Kadena Air Base B-52 crash Was created from my sandbox 12 hours PRIOR to his demands! Created from sandbox on March 19, 2017
7. Japan and weapons of mass destruction Was moved out from my sandbox four days after his demands! Japan and weapons of mass destruction move from sand box PRIOR TO March 19, 2017

Last, Buckshot06 himself moved material he knew to be from my sandbox into another namespace WP:ARTICLE one day PRIOR to his demand.

Most importantly, "I note you've already started breaking down your inputs into smaller chunks, after the long discussion with me at Mark Arsten's page, but please think about the rest too!! OR, POV, and sourcing errors (like trying to keep pure allegations in the article) destroy your credibility when you're trying to contribute here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)"[367] Johnvr4 (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I sincerely that hope the above exchange with him entirely clears up the total and absolute absurdity of Buckshot06's assertions in nominating my draft for deletion FIVE MONTHS TO THE DAY after his ridiculous prior threats to MfD the draft. All endorsements in support of his entirely false assertions are faulty and his abuse of the noticeboard processes (both MfD and ANI) is now shamefully exposed. (bold for emphasis)

I ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely, Be sanctioned for purposeful untruths, Leave my userspaces alone, and be prevented from causing further disruption, redevelopment, or improvement to Operation Red Hat with the administrator rights he has been granted. His behavior includes: WP:HOUND

1. The 4+ year assumption I am acting in bad faith
2. locking that page
3. Deleting the PageHist
4. Restoration of the exact problems that caused an AfD
5. deletion of mass amounts of reliable sources and relevant text
6. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts in discussion, reverts, rollbacks, nominations and noticeboards
7. harassment hounding

I may have difficulty responding in a timely fashion due to a hurricane in my location) Johnvr4 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• To deal with the central request immediately, Johnvr4, Arbcom is the only place where you can ask that Buckshot06 be stripped of his administrative privileges entirely. That is unless Buckshot voluntarily hands them in. Arbcom has a five hundred word limit for case requests (your wall is significantly longer than this), however, I strongly recommend against trying to get ARBCOM involved as they will deny this request on procedural grounds. Instead, your time would be much better spent, getting rid of as much of the assertions or irrelevant material as humanly possible. Very few people are going to be willing to spend their time reading 12k bytes of material. Whole articles have been written with less. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. I will reserve making that request for now. Since the DRV closure review was closed. Must I recap all in this forum and can both requests be open simultaneously? Thank you John.

• That depends, is Roy Smith's closure in any way shape or form relevant to this specific AN/I case and the interactions between you and Buckshot06. If no, then it doesn't belong here. If yes, then keep everything together in one place. Perhaps leave it until this has been resolved first. I don't think there is significant pressing concern that would prevent you from waiting to ask the question a week from now rather than today. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes I'm not sure how to answer that. and no? The relationship is that Buckshot the editor who nominated my user spaces for deletion and I expand my answer in the section below (with Roy). A now involved editor above strongly felt that the issues were the exactly same thing and closed my request however I went to DRV for specific answers and the were ignored completely. Below, I've asked the closer to reopen the request that I made in closure review. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_DRV_of_JohnVR4_userspace_Sandbox_drafts Johnvr4 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This thread appears to be the immediate follow-up to a closed DRV thread, itself a follow-up to a XfD thread, itself a follow-up to an AfD from 2013. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The DRV was a followup to the discussion at my user talk, which followed my closure of the MfD (reverted once by John because he disagreed). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Happily confirm Power~enwiki's summary, as well as PMC's note. The MfD was about my last throw to see if Johnvr4 was anything more than an SPA. It appears he has not changed his ways at all, and I do not believe he should be here. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Noting also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a Forumshopping exercise and as Malcolmxl5 notes above, those discussions have been opened in appropriate places (as stated above) where I have already asked for a review of the closure. Around January 5, 2017 I again notified Buckshot that his his assertions and actions re my draft were without merit and his harassment would lead to the possibility of sanctions and my Ignoring All Rules. nevertheless I incorporated his suggestions.

I did IAR and restore following each questionable recent deletion because every assertion he has made in moving to deletion discussions is a blatant misrepresentation of facts which other editors have (unbelievably) echo. [368]. The IAR restorations were immediate followups to questionable deletions but Buckshots06s efforts to ban me from the topic have persisted long before my IAR restorations.[369] I have edited numerous pages that prove his SPA noticeboard assertion are not accurate and that he knows that assertion to be untrue. Baseless SPA accusations by Moe Epsilon were addressed here: [370]. I also edit Electronic music project, Mil history, and others and wrote a nice article on Beacham Theatre as is mentioned on my user page while I took a break from all of controversies I've written about- which Buckshot06 is suddenly and very weirdly fixated on. He stated his purpose was to put a summary on the main space and something about the units and had no further interest. Those summaries he state were his sole purpose in this subject exist on the main space already and have for some time.

As I stated above and will repeat here, this thread is about the constant misrepresentations by Buckshot06 in very recent discussion and noticeboards- including those listed above- resulting in deletions of my attempts to improve WP. Per his previous section this appears- at least partially- to be an immediate follow up to Buckshot06s actualized threat from April 2017 to come here over a prior content disputes and sourcing that he wanted to edit war over, appeared to have gotten got all wrong, wanted to avoid content dispute and still wants to battle over, followed by my April 2, 2017 willingness to also come here if that is this was the forum that he chose to explore his use of that source (plus a list of other sources). Link:[371] I hope this information clarifies rather than confuses.Johnvr4 (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@User:Power~enwiki Please do not close my valid request for a closure review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review DRV of JohnVR4 userspace Sandbox drafts unless a particular WP policy requires it. I went to DRV for specific reasons, brought up specific concerns in policy and provided more than adequate proof yet the DRV request was closed by ignoring all of my concerns with out even reading them. That closure without addressing any of those concerns is reason for the request for closure review. I ask that you please reopen the review request that you recently closed if/when possible. Thank you, Johnvr4 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Johnvr4:--If you feel, that the true evidence that everyone is correct is adhering to your Supervalid beliefs and actions, I'm sorry to state that does not promise you a bright future on our site.And secondly, where this chain stops?You challenged the MfD at DrV.You are challenging the DrV at AN.Prob. iff the AN thread is let to run, a few days after it's clearly foreseeable close, you will be going to _____??I'm also genuinely concerned about the recreation of deleted and deletion-challenged material.That being said I am sorta neutral' about the invoking of ban/block hammer and will take the oppurtunity to sincerely request you to either leave the topic area or put a dead-stop to your disruptive antics.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades, I was hoping that I would be vindicated, my concerns would be validated, counter arguments would fall apart and be seen for what they were when actual facts were presented. I hoped that each valid concern that I raised in the DRV, and MfD closure would be reviewed since they were ignored in closing it (see comment below). I would hope the drafts would then be restored so I can finish developing them in my sandbox and moving material the does not fit out. Then Id like move the sandbox to my user space and then ask for further community review and publishing on the main space if or when it is deemed ready. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm involved (I closed the recent DRV he started) so I'll not voice an actual opinion here. But, based on what I've seen, Johnvr4 really does need to back away from flogging the Project Red Hat dead horse. It's obvious he's passionate about that subject, but the community has clearly spoken, and he needs to move on. I don't see any good that can come (either to himself, or to the encyclopedia) of him continuing to push his view of that topic. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Roy, your actual opinion you've posted above is based solely on something you stated you ignored completely but you did note WP:STALE applied in closure so that's something. You've ignored my valid policy views and closed the DRV because you didn't want to read it. That closure has not yet been reviewed. How the consensus of the community was reached is just one of issues that you were expected to answer. That was why I came to DRV. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read through all the links that were provided above (one of them was a duplicate, FYI) but in a nutshell this is boiling down to:

1. Johnvr4 wants editors to help review the sources, not necessarily all of them but some critical ones.
2. Get back to him on what needs to be improved with regards to how the draft could be improved re sourcing and details.
3. Johnvr4 did not want content to be excised from their draft version. (Something I gathered by this statement I hear your concern and I understand it. I've simply asked you to look past that concern for the time being and discuss with me the other concerns like the primary sourcing and level of detail etc, from this thread.
4. Johnvr4 did not like that fact that an older article was being expanded, incorporating content from his draft. (This was discussed at length, quite vociferously)
5. Most critically, Johnvr4 did not want others messing with his draft.

Does this sum everything up? Blackmane (talk) 05:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes for the most part and thank you Blackmane for taking the time to sort that out. The areas I gathered needing improvement (your #2) are at the end of that #3 thread link. That the Dec. version of the draft was too big was already understood by all (#1).

I would add that I wanted constructive criticisms and tagging of any problematic areas (your #1). I got mass excising (your #3), and being basically shut out of the topic/category (Article was revived a few times) and got what I believed were POV fork solutions instead of improvements to our main space (your#4). At that point I asked for certain editors not to "mess" with that sandbox (your#5).

Importantly, those areas needing improvement and those observations identified in those discussions were being addressed and incorporated into my sandbox (despite numerous assertions to the contrary). Was it a FAKE article, STALEDRAFT, abandoned or did it meet any of the requirements for deletion?

I am a still basically a rookie editor and not an administrator-please help me if I break etiquette or policy. There is a hurricane pending in the event I lose access to power or internet during discussion. Please ping me if a response or action is needed. I have a lot going on IRL. Thank you very much again, Johnvr4 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot06 sure seems to have taken WP:INVOLVED actions but it is extremely hard to fight an Admin. Best to protect your self, family amd neighbors in real life. Come back and request a copy of your work be emailed to you. Legacypac (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Buckshot is involved as was explained to him by Nick-D in describing his own involvement nine months ago. That is a reason we are here at ANI.

Quote from User_talk:Nick-D#U.S._nuclear_weapons_in_Japan.27s_southern_islands:

@Buckshot06: From looking at the article's talk page, it seems pretty clear that this is an editor conduct issue rather than a content issue. As it's a long-running issue, I'd suggest that you seek some form of admin intervention regarding John. Arguing about the article's content doesn't appear to be producing results, with material that was identified as problematic years ago and more recently continuing to be posted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Nick.

What sort of action would you suggest? Do you believe you are 'involved', or can you yourself consider taking action? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, a block per WP:NOTHERE or similar given that John, unfortunately, doesn't seem interested in working collaboratively to develop neutral and appropriate encyclopedia articles. Given that I've commented a fair bit on this matter and when it was raised a few years ago I think that I would be 'involved' here. You may want to contact one or more of the admins who serve as coordinators for the military history project ahead of ANI and ask that they look into the matter: my reading is that the underlying issue here is - despite the walls of text - quite simple, especially given all the attempts to work with John by a range of excellent editors and could be handled by any uninvolved admin without a need to use ANI or similar. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

End quote. Apparently, there are or may be a bunch of administrators who are involved that they asked to look into the matter. I don't know. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal concerning JohnVR4

"Johnvr4 is topic banned from contributing to or discussing articles regarding either Japan or weapons, broadly construed, anyway anywhere on the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban to WP:AN after six months." (Corrected typo: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC))

• Support NE Ent 19:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support, assuming there will be no consensus for the block. I hope we can convince John to turn his energies to something he feels perhaps less strongly about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment.I do not understand this proposal at all given the assertions of Buckshot06 already being proven to be bogus. Can we determine the merit of arguments, restore the drafts, then review them to determine whether a topic ban is appropriate? Have I abused the system? Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

It does not matter unfortunately. Buckshot06 is an Admin, so unless you can present damning evidence of abusing their position they will not be sanctioned, and even then likely not. You are best served to drop the dispute and edit elsewhere for a while. Defining this topic your way is not worth getting blocked or topic banned over. Legacypac (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC) I do have fairly damning evidence and have provided those links. I'd like the User space drafts restored right after exactly how and why they were deleted is explored and I want his harassment of me and of my submissions both past and future to end. I would like an agreement from him that that he will review the sources and refrain from fact-deficient assertions when editing this subject or in speaking to or about me. I'm not sure if that compromise can be enforced but that is my very reasonable proposal. If the issue is that two ANIs for similar reasons can't be open at once then place mine on hold. I don't understand the ANI policy but that section has relevant links for the ANI he opened which is slowly getting to the behavior that needs to be understood. (what or who is BRZ that suggested this proposal?) Johnvr4 (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4: Put aside your belief in the correctness of your position for just a moment, and clear your mind. Then start at the top of the discussion, skip all of your own comments, and read only the comments by other editors. Do you get the sense that anyone involved in the discussion is supporting your position? I think that if you're honest with yourself, you will see that that doesn't appear to be the case. This is a good bit of WP:CLUE for you that continuing to advocate your position aggressively is unlikely to end up in a result you'll be happy with, and could very possibly result in a sanction placed on you. You have to judge whether it's worthwhile to pursue your goal considering those circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I think every single editor would agree with me if they simply looked at the differences of User:Johnvr4/sandbox between Dec 2016 and it's deletion this week or the Afd version vs the Mfd versions. Buckshot06, Nick-D, and Moe won't ever agree with me again and many might tend to agree with them simply because they are usually highly wise, accurate, and reliable (I admit I would do that 9 times out of ten for that same reason in most cases) but if editors could please take look at those diffs, all of the assertions about my "preferred" version (vs the newer sources), not condensing material, not reducing scope, not improving, of not putting it on the main space, or of leaving it indefinitely would simply fall apart. I'm not saying it's perfect by any stretch and it's not even ready for formal draft submission -but it is so close! It's already split into three separate parts for three WP articles and it covers both sides of all the complex issues and is consistent with 177 sources as opposed to the POV current Operation Red Hat that doesn't remotely properly cover the majority points of the 12 of the reference it has had since its recreation. I feel strongly that it simply should not be deleted and that deleting it would be an extreme disservice to the WP project. I just took a 5 month break from this topic and 1.5 hours after returning for a moment to add a new source that addressed Moe's previous concern, Buckshot06 nominates it for MfD with misrepresentations that would take any administrator about 45 seconds to disprove. A Tempundelete of my user spaces would also clear it up. Promptly. Johnvr4 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "I think every single editor would agree with me if..." So, you're not going to do as I suggested and evaluate as neutrally as possible what other editors have already said above. Instead, you're going to stick to your personal party line that you are right, and everyone else is wrong, and everyone else would agree with you if they would only think as you do. That's tautologically true, but I'm trying to point you to what is the practical reality here, which is that you are virtually alone, and no matter how many times you repeat your tropes, you're going to remain alone or heavily outnumbered. If you refuse to recognize that, then all I can say is that I hope you enjoy the sanction that is almost certain to be heading your way -- just don't say that you weren't warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4 Can I implore you to read BMK's wise words again and heed his advice? Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts, and nobody here is agreeing with you. It all works by consensus here, even if that consensus is, in your opinion, wrong - I've disagreed with consensus many times, but I have to accept it, and you have to accept it. Simply continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, and that everyone would see things your way if only... well, that's an approach that is guaranteed to fail. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I agree with you Ken (and Boing!), However, I just took a 5 month break only to find myself challenging the MfD deletion of my User space draft and I am fairly certain it was not nominated or endorsed correctly. The main space article is simply a POV version that was opened by that editor literally during my discussions with him (and Nick) about improvements to my sand box draft. I've incorporated their suggestions in the deleted sandbox version over the last 5 months and the redevelopment was not complete. That is reality. It is undeniable. Assertions to the contrary are factually inaccurate in our present reality. Ken, those assertions and other content disputes are why we are here and my frustration stems from arguing over content with an editor who wont review our reliable sources. Other commenting administrators (such as Mr rnddude) have confirmed my assessment (in at least one case to date) and any editor who looked at that would likely do the same. "Admins can and have examined your most recent drafts," They have? Buckshot06 asserts that draft still it has not been improved nor condensed in scope and size and Nick-d says its POV and fails Verifiability. The deleted sandbox had Buckshot06 and Nick-Ds suggestions incorporated between Jan and May 2017. That is a primary reason why I feel their repeated assertions about that draft are so absurd. No one has seemed to even read what I've typed on noticeboards and deletion reviews and I highly doubt they took any time to look at the diffs of a deleted sandbox draft or the sources that used to support it. If they had there would be a lot of examples to support those assertions vs the sources that state what I submitted. If the draft was tempundelete-d during this discussion we could simply look right at the text and sources to see whether the assertions hold water. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) User_talk:Buckshot06/Archive_22#Draft_review During sandbox draft content discussion between Buckshot06 and Nick-D and I : "I've changed my mind; I've taken the material, retained the material on the core Red Hat CW/BW storage-and-disposal-from-Okinawa-to-Johnson subject, and relaunched the Operation Red Hat article. It still needs a lot of cleanup, but this is an example of what a more focused article, drawn from your text, would start to look like. It is *only* about thing that can be referenced to be referring to anything labelled Red Hat, so please do not start adding other subjects to the article. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC) " Johnvr4 (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) None of Buckshot06's topic versions cover the entire subject and my draft was MfDed 1.5 hours after I added this source that redefines entirely his strong views on relevance to the core topic. New source added: "The report refers to the possibility that in terms of its timing and the location, moving the barrels of Agent Orange from Okinawa to Johnston Island was a part of Operation Red Hat. A statement from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in 2009 referred to military herbicides having been stored in Okinawa during the period from August 1969 to March 1972 and later disposed of in Operation Red Hat. The relationship between Agent Orange and Operation Red Hat is indicated." Please explain. Johnvr4 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) One more try. Johnvr4, please read and seriously think about WP:DROPTHESTICK. The more you continue to hold on to your fixed position, the more it appears to others that you are fundamentally misaligned with core Wikipedian values, such as WP:CONSENSUS, and therefore the more likely it is that this discussion will result in a sanction for you, and that sanction will be harsher than it might have been if you had only allowed yourself to let things go instead of digging in your feet. Please understand, I'm not talking about right and wrong -- I haven't looked into the complexities of your situation seriously enough to make a judgment like that, and, in any case, this is just on online encyclopedia project, not the North Korean missile crisis -- I'm simply evaluating what's gone on here and the likely response to your intransigence. I think that you have to consider not what you believe to be right, and not what result you desire, but the probable result of this ongoing interaction, and decide if that result is worth your continuing to hold the line. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC) I absolutely hear and understand you Ken. I feel that consensus will be eventually be determined by the quality of the argument put forth but that I just haven't to date presented it in a fashion that can be overcome by a poll of other editors who do not have time to look into the merits of each assertion. It is too complex. I do understand that. I simply want the user space draft restored and have very valid policy reasons why that should have already happened. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) OK, your choice. Good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support since a block is likely to fail, and since it is an undesirable outcome anyways. Maybe being topic banned for six months, John can clear his mind and just focus on other topics and helping there. If he is knowledgeable in any other topics whatsoever, he should be able to make positive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia and let Japan/weapon-based topics go for a while. In the meantime, off of Wikipedia, maybe you can work on the articles on O.R.H. or related topics, personally. In some situations where I didn't want a public sandbox, I used a Word document and maintained wikitext and went from there. That way, John, you can work on bringing the articles up to publication with less conflict once you repeal the topic ban. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Moe, I hope you saw my apology above for my misstatement involving you and thanks for the suggestion. I thought that was what I was accomplishing in user space and that the improvements in my sandbox would speak for themselves. Johnvr4 (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support As second-preferred option after a block. As noted in my comments above, Johnvr4's editing on these topics does not meet a range of key Wikipedia standards, including WP:V and WP:NPOV, and attempts by multiple editors to provide advice to address this issue have not been successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

There is zero evidence to support Nick-D's statement and much to disprove it. Nick-D was asked here for one example of what he has asserted and couldn't provide one. Further, Nick-D and involved editor, admitted that the much older Dec. version of my sandbox was improved and he told that to Buckshot06, (another involved editor), who seemed to be abusing his discretion at that time. "... I'm not sure if I'm following the above discussion, but It would be best to not use the 2013-era text given John's comments on how he's improved upon it and sought to address the concerns over sourcing, etc, raised in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)" I had improved the sandbox while incorporating their suggestions between Jan. and Mar. which even Buckshot06 admitted elsewhere (at least twice). Yet Buckshot06s asserted at MfD just 1.5 hours after my last edit, that the draft was without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD and Nick-D echoed his statement: "As the material is not being actively edited to address the concerns raised, it should be deleted. ... Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)" It seems clear that both editors knew full well that their assertions at WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat, here, and other place sounded untrue when they wrote them. Their dubious statements have been echoed by several other editors. Johnvr4 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Johnvr4: Please stop outdenting every time you respond to something. The proper procedure is to add one more tab (i.e. one more colon, with a bullet counting as a colon) than the comment you're responding to. I've had to fix almost every response of yours here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC) @Johnvr4: Your conviction that everyone will agree with you if only you can find the right way to present your case is causing you to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. Please stop - this is a community discussion, and not every comment requires a response from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support since he will not take good advice. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Nick-D. SophisticatedSwampert ^{let's talk about that} 06:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support (but fix the "anyway" typo to "anywhere"): There is clearly a serious problem here, but it's very topical, and we don't block people for topic-limited things, especially when the behavior is very long-term (i.e., even a lengthy block would likely result in resumption of the behavior when the block expired). An indefinite block could be considered, but I don't see sufficient evidence that the problem rises to that level. This is a content and PoV dispute about a particular subject area, so removing the editor from discussion and editing about that should fix it. If not, we'll know soon enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Note to the closing administrator: This is an active and continuing issue and does require resolution. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing administrator: This is an active and continuing issue and does require resolution. Please close this incident report formally. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:42, 18 September 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.