Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943

JzG on The People's Cube

The following discussion is closed. 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 bringing this here because the user in question has the admin bit set.

The kind of behavior I'm seeing JzG (talk · contribs) display over the past few days on The People's Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) would be merely regrettable coming from any other editor on the site, but seeing it come from an admin, someone who's behavior is supposed to be exemplary, their knowledge of policy extensive, their skill with Mediawiki refined... is flat out disheartening and has me questioning why I'm spending the time. At this point, I don't care whether this behavior is made in good faith in accordance with the rules, as much as I care about this level of carelessness when it comes to working on something that could wind up deleted based on the changes.

I'll try to keep this as far away from the actual content dispute as I can, because that's not the real issue here. Issue 1 excepted; as it touches on what appears to be a complete misunderstanding of "independent".

• Inaccurate edit summaries:
  • [1]: Characterizing an unrelated print book author as "not an independent source" to justify blanking an entire paragraph.
  • [2]: Falsely claiming that a third party source said something they did not (source quoted by me [3], full source [4])
  • [5]: This is what they said when blanking a paragraph.
  • [6]: Deleting a print article with an edit summary of removing blogs, because, you know, blogs
  • [7]: Summary of "moving" when in actuality a paragraph is being blanked. Not restored at any later time.

• Personal attacks:
  • [8]: In which I am accused of being a "POV Editor" after asking "if the snarky edit messages were really necessary."
  • [9]: In which my editing history is brought up apropos of nothing.
• Incivility in edit summaries:
  • [10]: This was not a flattering mention at all. Odd that whoever inserted this didn't think to note that Tyson is pretty clearly contemptuous of the site.
  • [11]: What, so you onlty want to include sources with your own misleading interpretation? Nope. That's not how it works.
  • [12]: My word, actual commentary about the site. A rare thing indeed. Most "sources" are just namechecks.
  • [13]: This is a valid source for the cube. See the difference?
• Failure to understand policy:
  • [14]: Self published sources about themselves are allowable, per WP:SELFPUB, and no reasonable doubt about authenticity was articulated in the edit summary or any related talkpage.

• Other disruptive editing during AfD:
  • [15],[16]: Breaking citation URLs to replace them with less detailed versions than the originals.
  • [17]: Deleting citation URLs in general, which have to be fixed by a bot
  • [18]: Insertion of unencyclopedic language like "purported".

If my behavior here has been inappropriate, then please let me know and apply appropriate troutage.

Otherwise, I'd like to ask JzG to step away until such time as he agrees to turn off the snark, assume good faith, slow down and exercise more care in his edits (especially on contentious, in-danger articles), and finally to write civil edit messages that are accurate reflections of the actions taken.

Karunamon ^✉ 03:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Diff 1: Neither source is independent. One is the TCP, the other, the book, is intimately related to the author of the image whose copyright was being violated. Diff 2: The edit you link here doesn't remotely lack your description. I lost interest in the complaint after that. Have you tried talking to Jzg about any of these concerns? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Bah, I got 2 confused with something else. Deleted it. The diffid's started to blend togeteher a bit as I was writing this. Anyways. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "intimately related to the author of the image." Also, this what you just gave me is more detail that I've gotten out of JzG despite my requests on the AfD for more detail. I'm unsure how I'm supposed to go about tapping someone on the shoulder who has the power to block me, for this kind of behavior, absent a third opinion, which is kinda what i'm asking for here. Karunamon ^✉ 04:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

JzG does not have the power to block you. As an involved administrator on this issue, he would find himself rapidly flogged with a large fish and potentially desysopped if he did. And I'm sorry, I have to strike my remark on diff 1 - I had somehow misread a description of the book as having been written by Alberto Korda. My bad. Ok, in that case I'm not sure what JzG is on about there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a single one of the edit summaries you declare to be "incivil" is actually incivil. Sometimes snarky, perhaps, and on-point, but snark has never been prohibited on the encyclopedia. For instance, the Tyson one is spot-on — whoever wrote the section used a source to name-check Neil deGrasse Tyson without noting that Tyson was harshly critical of the site's content. This could lead to readers being misled to believe that Tyson somehow endorsed or supported the site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• i just reviewed all those diffs. Guy was following WP policies and guidelines and removing a bunch of self-serving, self-cited (or affiliate-cited) stuff from the article. Given this transparently tendentious posting, a boomerang is well in order here. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake in diff 4 as what you linked to doesn't say what you claimed it said. Did you mean to link to [19]. It does look like one of the sources removed is not a blog. However all the other ones seemed to have been. And notably the part which was removed contained two references, the second one was a blog. I would guess the first reference was missed which is unfortunate but doesn't in itself seem to be an error worth of sanction. Especially since there seem to be justification to keep that text anyway. Without the blog, there's no secondary source mentioning this re-print so it doesn't seem significant enough to mention. Nil Einne (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be correct. Again, no deception intended, my error, going through 18 different diffs and linking to each of them in one post is an error-prone process. However, my issue is with the pattern. Breaking stuff willy-nilly, repeatedly, to be cleaned up by bots or others. Were this an RfA, I'd be bringing those examples of carelessness up (nevermind the snarking at people.. which apparently I just learned is completely okay per Jytdog above. So much for WP:ESDONTS?) as a reason to oppose. I especially take great issue with edit summaries that are patently false. When you "move" something, you don't erase a paragraph and do nothing else. You don't erase print articles as an example of deleting blogs. Slow the heck down and think about what you're doing. Karunamon ^✉ 06:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd encourage uninvolved administrators to examine the OP's behaviour on the associated AfD discussion to put this into context. Maybe I'm still annoyed at being called deceptive & told I'm acting in bad faith by the OP, who knows, but the OP was warned that blogs and other self-created sources carried no weight. Starting this discussion to protest their removal is a very transparent act. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the benefit of anyone reading, they are referring to this [20], wherein I posted a reworked version of the article with different sources and asked for feedback on them. Exemplo then replied, dumping each one with summaries like "passing mention". This would be fine and dandy, if somehow they hadn't accomplished this feat of evaluation in about 27 minutes (or spending <1:17 per source, some of which were rather lengthy). I called shenanigans, saying "I find it very hard to believe you evaluated 21 sources in 27 minutes". This was based on the timestamps of the comments - my "RFC" was posted at 1/5 00:59, Exemplo's reply was posted at 1:26, with a followup "Before anyone suggests I didn't go through each one of these sources independently..." at 1:44 by Exemplo. This is a statement I still stand by. Karunamon ^✉ 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• The OP returned in December from what is effectively a ten year hiatus, and has expended most of his efforts in recent days trying to keep a right wing fake news website, repeatedly reinserting self-sourced material, inserting references with non-neutral summaries of incidents, then removing them when they are checked and turn out to be less than flattering, and so on. This is classic alt-right sleeper sock behaviour. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, that is a flat out lie. I've spent more time and effort and edits on stuff like disambiguations, RC patrolling, and such than I have this one article (and in fact was active for a a week before this even went up for deletion and their "call for help" went up.). I have made a combined 78 edits to the article, the talk page, the AfD page, and a userspace draft I took in an attempt to rework the article. My first day "back" was December 24th (same link) while the article wasn't listed for deletion until January 2nd, a full week later. I have made 222 edits (232 if you count today as I write this) since that date, which means that this article and related pages have accounted for ~35% of my editing since that date. Hardly "most of my efforts". And speaking of lies, I'd like to ask him to link to the diffs where I "removed references that are checked and turned out to be less than flattering", because that was someone else. I thanked JzG for his efforts in finding that article and did not remove it even once. We did have two reverts each on how to describe that article, but it was never removed. I dislike being slandered as a "sleeper sock", and would suggest that JzG put up this accusation on a case on SPI or shut up. I believe that any such review would find that I have only ever edited from two other IPs, none of the edits there related to anything political. I also control no other accounts. Karunamon ^✉ 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, no, it's an interpretation of the facts. You may disagree, and it may even be wrong, but it is plainly supportable, as anybody who reviews your edit history will see. You edited a fair bit up to fall 2006, then made a couple of dozen edits over a period of more than a decade, then returned to activity on December 22, 2016. From Jan 4, your primary focus was The People's Cube. This may be entirely innocent, but it's a pattern that has been seen before in alt-right sleeper socks during the worst of GamerGate (and continuing to the present). Guy (Help!) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a completely false interpretation that fails AGF. I notice how you said nothing about your unsupported accusations that I was removing refs from the article, either. My "primary focus" has been RC patrolling and dab pages to a lesser extent, which an evaluation of my edit history will prove. I expect you to either substantiate, or retract these accusations. Karunamon ^✉ 23:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Comment: The article is dead now, and I've CSD'd my userspace draft. Karunamon ^✉ 19:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Just to note - The People's Cube is currently at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube) and the AfD itself is a mess of tendentious editing, going so far that it to be protected to deal with troublesome unregistered editors. The root cause of the trouble appears to be an attempted marshalling of the forces via the Twitter page of The People's Cube. There's also few old usernames that I've not seen for a while appearing in the AfD to Keep the article, right enough. I don't know if they're alt-right sleepers or just old timers who happened to have the page on their watchlists (page info currently says 24 watchers, so not implausible). I don't see any issues with Guy's editing or edit summaries - he had far sharper fangs a few years ago... Nick (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I had PTSD. It's a bastard. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Karunamon, you are a crazy man for trying to bring this up at ANI. Are you seriously trying to report an admin part of the core clique with dozens of Wikifriends? That's not how Wikipedia works. You will just be BOOMERANG'ed. --Pudeo (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not in the least bit helpful. So what help-help-I'm-being-oppressed axe have you come here to grind?--Calton | Talk 01:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dude, don't make comments like this. I opened this case because the facts are on my side and I fully expect them to be found in my favor. I don't share this belief that there is a "core clique" that ignores hard evidence when it's brought to them. Karunamon ^✉ 01:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In case nobody noticed, the article, and hence the links posted by the OP, are now gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Admins have the ability to see deleted revisions, IIRC. Karunamon ^✉ 01:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

More at ALEC

Chiming in here, I don't know what kind of bug is up his butt but Guy has been difficult to deal with on other articles as well lately and I think he deserves a trout. He stormed into American Legislative Exchange Council and re-reverted me ignoring BRD, responding to my good faith, substantive edit summary with unconstructive comments such as the dismissive "Not liking a source does not make it unreliable". Then after I start talk page discussions with more constructive arguments his response is, "I get it: you odn't like liberal sources." (Which is laughable, by the way.) He is also knowingly editing against longstanding consensus and forcing me to take him to RSN to enforce that consensus. I haven't reviewed Karunamon's allegations but like them I think that while this conduct might not be sanctionable, Guy could edit less disruptively and set a better example for less experienced editors. (And just to be clear, I think Guy does lots of great work and I frequently agree with him.)--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it has the exact same problem: self-sourced uncritical material. That gets a pass when the subject is uncontroversial, but when it's a group that attracts the kind of controversy ALEC attracts, much more robust sourcing is required.

Your best solution is: bring better sources. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Guy that self-sourced material is among the least acceptable types here, in those few cases where it is acceptable. This is particularly true when the subject matter is in some way controversial. As per the consensus discussed above, concensus can change, particularly if the alleged earlier consensus was either from a limited number of individuals or perhaps some with the same sorts of opinions or under what are now changed circumstances. Much as I regret it when people have to engage in such editing, it is, in fact, probably one of the most necessary kinds of editing we need, particularly on articles that don't get a lot of attention. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We're talking about conduct here, not content. Ironically, Guy's comment above might be the most constructive content comment he's made on the subject. The problem, however, is that at article talk his comments have been extremely light on the "convincing" part and a bit too heavy on the "dismissing" part. Arguments like "I don't like the consensus, so I'm just going to say it doesn't apply to the disputed content" isn't constructive. In fact it's disruptive. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman, in general, when you're using quotation marks, you should only quote the user directly. I can't find any evidence of that exact quote coming from Guy, which makes that an attempt at paraphrasing his statement. I don't think it's an accurate summary of what he said. My interpretation of what he was saying is that the content used from the watchdog group does not seem to violate WP:RS in this context. The right thing to do in such a case is to build consensus or seek WP:3O for the disputed usage; if you're already doing that over at RSN, then good. Despite your contention to the contrary, it really does look like a content dispute and not an issue with the user's conduct. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note about syntax: Try using single quotes instead of double quotes when trying to pick out a phrase that you're using to paraphrase someone (That won't make sense to most Brits, I know, but it does to us Yanks). Or else use italics, maybe. I understand what you're getting at, and I understand why quotes seem appropriate, but I agree with Alex that it has the potential to come across as you putting words in the other editors mouth. No trouting involved, as I've done it myself. Alternatively, there's always this... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. We have a number of ongoing problems right now, one of which is self-sourced marketing material in articles on commercial entities (especially Orwellian-named and obscurely funded free market nonprofits), and another is cleaning up the 2016 upsurge in fake news and the false equivalence between editorial agenda (e.g. HuffPo) and outright fabrication (per Breitbart). The more people who work on this, the better. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Javed_Malik_and_Haider_Qureshi

Someone really need to see this discussion. its getting messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.39.124 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234

User:Sportsfan_1234 reverted my edits repeatedly without a valid reason at [21].

• Sportsfan 1234 claimed that I needed to "Wait for an engish source." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=756925140&oldid=756919398) even though non-English sources are allowed (WP:NONENG).
• when I restored the ref and asked "Which Wiki rule says that sources have to be in English?", Sportsfan 1234 reverted my edit again. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=757319650&oldid=757287621) This editor then replaced my reference (an official source from Japan) with a fansite.
• I restored the official source due to WP:NOENG and WP:RELIABLE, source should be "of equal quality".
• Sportsfan 1234 reverted my work a third time, saying "Who determines if its equal value? The website is of equal importance if anything. Start a talk page discussion please." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=757402380&oldid=757394650) No explanation as to how a fansite is of equal value to an official source.
• In fact, I had already started a discussion on Sportsfan 1234's talk page but they deleted it [22]
• Sportsfan 1234 claimed it was "extremely sloppy and lazy" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHergilei&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=757410827&oldid=757406227) that I didn't fill out a particular field in a citation, even though there's no obligation to fill all of them out.
• In the past couple of days, this person has nominated seven of my articles for deletion.

I feel this is harassment to keep targeting me like this, in such a persistent manner. There's been a lot of discussion about Gender bias on Wikipedia. Well, aggressive behaviour like this is one of the reasons why there are so few women editors here. Hergilei (talk)

I said wait for an English source because from my experience working with Thai ad Japanese sources, there usually is an English one that comes out shortly after. As for the source in question I did add it back [23]. I was unaware the English source I added is a 'fan site' but it does get the information across in the English language. As for this example [[24] you falsely put the wrong title (in English, versus the actual Thai title). To me that is sloppy and lazy. Please refer to the respective deletion threads for reasons why they are nominated. Please stop playing the victim here. You have gone ahead and added references to three of the articles nominated for deletiom (which to me shows they do not meet criteria to be on Wikipedia prior to the addition of these references). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't "falsely put the wrong title". I undid an edit because "Wait for a english source." (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_Asian_Winter_Games&type=revision&diff=755876534&oldid=755868580) was not a valid reason to revert Golf-ben10's edit. An English source may come along but it might not. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Since non-English sources are allowed (WP:NONENG), there's no reason to keep reverting when other people try to include them. Hergilei (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

And I didn't revert that edit. I removed it for being incorrectly formatted and I added a source in Thai (which by the way was properly formatted). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD edit to Economy of Iran

There is a serious problem with this editor, He/she is disrupting this GA article or pretends not to see my remarks on his/her talk page like here: Possibly a trap by an agent?

Example: 1. He/she says he "only added links" (and updated numbers). This is patently a lie. Please read his talk page and interactions with other editors on his talk page for more insight.

Kind regards, 47.17.27.96 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Please Admins look into this matter. 47.17.27.96 this ip address first reverted all my edit without giving reasons. then he reverted all edits after giving reasons. so i restored mistakenly removed paragraph on Economy of Iran and ask him to remove only mistakes not all my edits. But then again he reverted all edits although i have restored that paragraph. I think his original account is User:SSZ but he is using 47.17.27.96 ip address for putting warnings on my talk page. Please solve this issue. you can see [[25]] i just updated the article with latest IMF Oct 2016 report and CIA World Factbook values and removed old figures. SpidErxD (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Spider has reverted the article 4 times in the past day and is showing severe WP:OWNership of the article.74.70.146.1 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Please admin look into this issue. Two ip addresses 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 reverting all my edits without valid reason. 2 days ago i spend 2 hours reading and researching about Economy of Iran and then i made 8-9 edits in which i mistakenly removed one paragraph. instead of fixing my one mistake 47.17.27.96 reverted all my edits. and put warnings on my talk page. I think both ip addresses belongs to User:SSZ. and he is using these ip addresses for putting warnings on my talk page and reverting my edits without valid reason. Please ask these 74.70.146.1 and 47.17.27.96 ip addresses to use their original accounts to put warnings and notice issues on wikipedia. Please admin look into this issue. SpidErxD (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Verify: Spider has reverted 4 times in hours without reaching any consensus on talk page. He says that I gave no reason while everything is explained in detail on his talk page (which he deleted) and then on the economy's article talk page here. He has been told by 2 editors (including me) to discuss his edits and not "edit war"; which is frowned upon. Please revert to this last stable version after verification. Thanks. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment-@SpidErxD:-I would like to request you to refrain from adding the 2016 data repetitively.Although clearly sourced, they are projected estimates.Also, I don't see any importance at all for the note he seems to be determined to add in the infobox.That you deviated from the long-standing consensus and choose to make some edits into the article which was subsequently reverted puts the onus on you to justify your edits on the talk page and gain consensus.As a side note, assuming somebody to be a vandal only because he reverts your edits and indulging in WP:EDITWAR is not a good approach towards a constructive discussion.I am not an admin.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to ban FoCuSandLeArN due to undisclosed paid 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.

---

This has become slightly academic since FoCuSandLeArN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired today, but given that this user has racked up 70k edits, I think it is important that the community is aware. As I discussed at length on their talk page two weeks ago, I had noticed numerous examples where they'd written articles within days of users uploading photos on commons that were obviously PR shots. They disputed my allegation that they were paid to create them, but User:Doc_James has confirmed through off-wiki communications that at least one of those articles was indeed paid for. What first alerted me though was a major rewrite of Andrew N. Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical Company (also majorly rewritten) to which User:Earflaps had added a PR shot (Earflaps ANI for context). Due to extensive use of huggle and drafting articles in their sandbox, it's not easy to work out what they've edited, but I have collected various articles and diffs in User:Smartse/notes. Amongst them:

• Bill Koenigsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) CEO of Horizon Media which is currently being drafted. An early version of the bio contained PR-copy that I am unable to find online.
• Securities and Exchange Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) an attempted POV-fork of Banc De Binary whose representatives are already banned and which User:Nagle described as having "some of the worst COI problems in Wikipedia history".
• Paul_Singer_(businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) rewrite removes His business practices have been described by detractors as having the characteristics of a vulture fund, a characterization which Singer rejects. As noted on the TP, they made repeated attempts to gain consensus to remove the use of "vulture" e.g.
• Alcoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rewrite removed any critical content in Environmental record. Article was previously edited by Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs).
• Arconic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Company split from Alcoa.
• Kinross Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major rewrite downplays financial losses and expands Corporate responsibility section.
• RadiumOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Major expansion, article previously attracted COI: [26]
• Bog standard paid editing at CreditEase, Spur Corporation, Dual Universe, Ludovic Le Moan and Sigfox

This represents only a tiny fraction of their edits, but at least to me, I don't see any possibility other than them being a paid editor. Considering they'd been rumbled and I'd warned them that they'd be bought here, it's no surprise that they've retired. While it's purely ceremonial, I still think that we should ban them. It's going to take some fresh thinking to decide how to go about cleaning up. SmartSE (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I agree the ban is justified. At this point the Wikipedia position is very clear. No ned to risk them coming out of retirement to make a dollar.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I've done some cleanup on Kinross Gold, and many BdB related topics. There's no doubt many of these including the gold mine company have been targeted for major PR wikiwashing. Doc James's discovery of an undeclared off-wiki commercial nexus comes as no surprise. Ceremonial or not, we have to send a clear signal that use of Wikipedia as a corporate PR vehicle is not tolerated. - Brianhe (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I didn't realize they'd actually tried a POV fork at Banc De Binary. For those who came in late, here's the previous Banc De Binary mess on Wikipedia, from 2014: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary.2C_Round_2. There was an intense paid editing effort, including an offer of $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" their article on Wikipedia to omit details of their illegal operations in the US. (They lost in US court, and had to stop operating in the US, refund every US customer 100% of customer losses, and pay a sizable penalty.) Since 2014, it's gradually come out that Banc De Binary, and most of the binary options industry, is a large scale scam. There are multiple reliable sources for this.[27][28]. It's become politically embarrassing to Israel's government. Due to a loophole in Israeli law, it's legal to scam non-Israelis from inside Israel. Israel's securities regulator is trying to fix that, but as yet, it's still legal.[29]. There's also a big SEO effort to hide bad stories about binary options, involving a large number of dummy sites promoting binary option companies. What we see on Wikipedia is spillover from all this. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note: based what appears to be pretty damning evidence here, I will revoke their autopatrolled and new page reviewer rights. BethNaught (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban, since an editor can "unretire" at any time. Miniapolis 23:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban for undisclosed paid editing. Personally I think any articles they have created which have not been significantly edited by another editor should be deleted as well. The only way we will ever get a hand on UPE is by making sure that their edits do not stick. In principle this is no different than how we handle edits by already blocked/banned editors but, since their entire history was in violation of the ToU, it should reach back. Edits in violation of the ToU are more damaging to the project than edits made in violation of a block/ban so should be treated at least as severely. Jbh^Talk 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I had rewritten the Kinross article a few years ago, and last year (or maybe earlier) found it had been effectively taken over by someone (not you Brianhe) who I thought might have a COI on the other end of the spectrum (i.e. wanting to make the company look bad, turning the article into a giant financial statement, and misrepresentation of sources). It is such a minimally followed article there wasn't much talk page discussion. I didn't have any issues with the rewrite (not to say it couldn't use more work). I won't be commenting one way or there other on a ban suggestion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• I support the ban. And I personally agree that retrospective review and deletion of the articles is appropriate. I think the ToU fundamental policy within which enWP operates. There is a specific provision in the ToU that any WMF project may choose to vary the terms with respect to paid editing--for example, Commons has done so. As we have not, it's an implicit endorsement. And of course even without the ToU, this is covered by our general policy against disruptive editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note that I have combed all of the articles involved (including the ones listed above) and it seems we're only encountering the ones in the past 4 months until the last final article contributions, hence it's not a large case here. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @SwisterTwister: I'm not sure what you mean - the dodgy photo uploads started in 2014 and as of yet, we haven't determined the scale of the problem. If there were many problems in the last 4 months, that's probably because that was the time period I looked at. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban and support deletion of all articles that are promotional and not worked on by others Based on both on WP evidence of promotional editing and off wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing. Their stuff on microorganisms is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support ban and the investigation should go further I have only been aware of FoCuSandLeArN's activities at the BdB article, but that's enough all by itself for a ban. That article has been the worst example on Wikipedia of a company inserting material that is harmful to our readers. They've been doing it for years now, e.g. the article was recreated by a sock of Morning277/Wiki-PR. I believe there's a connection with the OrangeMoody paid editing scandal as well. The firm has been banned from soliciting their victims in the US by the SEC *and* the CFTC. They are in the process of being regulated out-of-existence in Israel (where they are based but can't accept customers). Also there are many news articles coming out recently about how the whole binary options industry outside the US is a scam. A rough summary: these "brokers" run fixed online "slot machines" (60 or 30 second minimum time between trades) marketed as "investments". The odds are fixed by the "brokers" who are betting against their "customers" - victims - directly. They try to lock in their victims to make a large numbers of trades. If by some miracle a customer manages to make money, they simply refuse to give their money back. Published reports from reliable sources say that 80% of the customers lose money, but I think that's just being conservative (by about 20%). And finally the "broker" or their software provider have the ability to determine the output (win or lose) of the "slot machine". Average loss for each customer over the life of their trading - something like $20,000.

Sorry if I get a bit emotional about this - but allowing those folks to market their "services" on Wikipedia is just offensive. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones is right about that. Read this sixteen-part expose of the binary option industry in the Times of Israel.[30]. We're past the point where we have to worry about crusading on Wikipedia as being not NPOV; the mainstream press has done the crusading. There is negative mainstream press coverage from Israel, London, France, Canada, the US, and even Romania. Wikipedia keeps getting hit by the binary option industry because it's one of the few sites that outranks their many SEO-promoted fake news/review sites. Incidentally, it's an affiliate business; most of the industry, several hundred brands including Banc De Binary, are affiliate brands of SpotOption. So we need to watch for other brands as well. It just keeps getting worse; here's a new scam involving up-selling Banc de Binary customers to get them to put the rest of their net worth into affiliated scam operations.[31] John Nagle (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The only reason an experienced editor with a huge editcount would make undisclosed paid edits is if they had been compromised. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Deletion of articles

Now that this user is banned, let us discuss what articles should be scrutinized, and deleted if necessary. 70k contributions is quite a lot to go through. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

While it may seem counterintuitive, I do not think that Banc De Binary should be deleted. With the civil suits by the CFTC and SEC there were enough facts reported that something like a neutral article could be written. More sources have just become available. Since the original revelations the BdB editors have been trying to get the article deleted. I don't think we should accommodate their wishes on this.

Rather we should look at articles that have not had other editors contributing to the articles.

Perhaps we could alert other editors to look at the articles edited by F&L Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:COIN (permlink) and created an article survey list at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/FoCuSandLeArN. Suggest we mark up that list with the stuff that doesn't have substantial edits by others. - Brianhe (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely keep Banc De Binary. They've achieved notability, and have lots of solid press coverage. Notability for doing bad things, but notability nonetheless. John Nagle (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that Brian. WP:LTA is probably a better place for it though, along with the Earflaps stuff. The non-automated edit tool lists non-automated contribs so will also come in handy (not working for me atm though). SmartSE (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• As I noted above, I have in fact combed all of the non-science articles and subsequently tagged all of the blatant advertisements for deletion, however not given the Commons photos since I'm not involved in that side. There is one last one, the Spur Corporation but it's because it needs a thorough history, one of which I may execute soon. Keep to mind also, 70k contributions are not all about advertising subjects, about 95% of his contribs were in fact for science subjects, and the majority as mentioned above were in fact the last 2-4 months. I managed to also include a few advertising that were from last spring. SwisterTwister talk 03:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Ghaith Pharaon page

Persistent claims (3 times) that Ghaith Pharaon has died. Apparently various Hungarian blogs have claimed that Pharaon is dead (Pharaon seems to have become a club to beat Viktor Orbán with), but each edit is by a different IP editor, each one gives a different date, and none of them give a source. If he's dead, a simple link to a newspaper obituary is all that's necessary. If that's not available, it strongly suggests this is blog bilge. Comments on the talk page have not stopped this unsourced editing, and if it's going to be a different editor each time the claim is reinstated, I don't have the time to leave notes for all these people. I suggest a block to keep him/her/them off. Rgr09 (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think you are looking for WP:RFPP. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced pages and possible sockpuppet, Kla Fla, Larry astroloid, Christian Orella

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

---

Dear Administrators,

User:Kla Fla has created 10 pages that have all been flagged as PROD as being unsourced or lacking notability or speedy delete nominated by User:Jennica or User:Graeme Bartlett or User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi or User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I have warned him twice about creating unsourced material but there has been no reply. There is a second user with a very similar modus operandi User:Larry astroloid who has been doing almost identical editing.

As I am writing this I have just discovered a 3rd User:Christian Orellana who has edited on the same pages as the first 2 editors with an identical editing pattern. Larry astroloid created a page called Parrot Lifespan deleted by User:Mike Rosoft as being a duplicate and Christian Orella recreated page equally called Parrot Lifespan.

My original idea behind this ANI is to find a way of warning them about creating unsourced material but I now think that a sockpuppet investigation should be opened. Should I repost this request on the other noticeboard? Domdeparis (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Domdeparis; The editor interaction analyst gives us this- not sure about Chistian Orella, but you'll probably have a shot with the other two at SPI. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi I'll see what the admins reply about reposting at SPI unless you think I'll have to do it any way. Domdeparis (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please post a proper report at WP:SPI so that this can get the attention it deserves from people with experience at handling this kind of issue. There isn't already enough back-and-forth here to make the move to a different forum problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok I'll do that. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by user 55378008a

The following discussion is closed. 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 55378008a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly making bad edits to articles, mainly by inserting inappropriate entries in See also sections, by their own admission usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject. Many editors have complained about this. In response to multiple careful and polite warnings on their talkpage (eg. [32], [33], [34]) we get incomprehensibe walls of text, meaningless extracts of editing guidelines, lessons about policies, suspicion of bad faith, etc... Upon this final warning for leaving yet more inappropriate WTF links ([35]) at Nicotiana rustica (a.o. to Austerity, Pseudoscience, Ersatz good, Bonded warehouse, Factory (trading post)) I am asked to "make a comment about how youre assuming good faith". I don't know what to do next but maybe this could use some administrative intervention. User notified on talk page. - DVdm (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree 100%. Some action needs to be taken IMO. This user has IMO demonstrated that they are averse to following even the most basic of editing guidelines. It ends up causing other editors a lot of work to clean up. I believe a quick review of their editing history, and the subsequent reverts by other editors will be self-explanatory. Hannibal Smith ❯❯❯ 14:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agree. I've been back through a couple of years of edits, cleaning up, and it's been like this all along. I only looked at ones which are currently the most recent so I strongly suspect I missed a lot of other dodgy edits. I think this user actually does understand the rules but deliberately flouts them because they find it amusing. They tick many of the boxes for WP:NOTHERE. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• How can this be anything but trolling? The user's name is the old calculator joke of writing BOOBLESS upside down. Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

....an example even discussed at Calculator spelling. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a fun username, no evidence of trolling intentions. I've seen funnier ones. - DVdm (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if trolling is the right word, but disruption definitely appears to be - apart from the nature of the edits, the edit summaries give the game away. IMHO this user both walks and quacks like a duck. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

15k worth of barely coherent rambling. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Im sorry if Im the only one that takes answering questions and addressing concerns seriously. If someone doesnt want a giant response, they can not make false accusations. Besides you had no time to read any of it that fast. 55378008a (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Hi everybody, thanks for taking the time to do this. Not quite sure what to say. I deny. No opinion. None, whatsoever. Maybe that'd be for the best, huh? I would say how this is going to go is Ill say far as I know I dont need to edit Wikipedia (I know its not a right, I know I said that already and I know not anyone can edit it, I know theres zero interest in expanding and improving, I know theres a lot of jealousy out there all that. Whats the judge say? "this isnt about right or wrong, its not about the law, its about survival." Wikipedia needs to keep their lights on. I need to not screw it up for them, or you, or us, or whatever. I do know for a fact I dont need to do stuff I dont need to be doing. As far as allegations, [by me][that] Im being trolled, this is mobbing, Im not understood, Im screwing up peoples opinions filling articles - all that I dont see what that has to do with anything), agree to a ban and then therell be consensus for a ban. So I dont know maybe a ban on (mainspace, is it?) editing articles? And let me ask people to add stuff on talk pages and mess with the sandboxes tied to the account for me, and see how that goes. Sorry about all the sentences with conjunctions here but Im just not going to flow otherwise, same with the lack of punctuation. I do have some questions and comments which I might be wasting my time to make/ask (as hopefully we can all agree has been the case so far? I admit I know its not 'truthipedia') but I dont think Im going to be able to stop myself. I always got ns in self control, very consistently. This (no, I know for a fact, theres no opinion about it) goes back to being poisoned, but long story and I know nobody wants to hear it. Im pretty sure, anyway and I probably shouldnt tell it even if somebody did. The whole denial thing about the poisoning goes back pretty far Im sure which is why were all here today, right? ok. Firstly, how were you going to get me blocked from editing without further warning yesterday after [this ] warning no block is it me if none of you are an administrator. Was that an empty threat? Because I fell for it. Again, not that I feel I need to do this. Im just as guilty of autopilot as anyone else involved in this thing. Well maybe not quite as much but anyway. Except I use my powers for good instead of evil. That thing where you all keep your posts to exactly 5 lines, that is commendable as all heck. I always got red Ps all over my papers too. You got me, Im jealous. Not like super craycray, Im going to hide in the bushes outside your house but, you know. I do wish I could do that [not try to address all concerns and just blow people off and then attack them when theyre dumb enough to think because Im uncommunicative that that means Im letting it slide]. 'Many' editors did not complain. Maybe 6 definitely under 10? Out of what at least 10,000 editors on wikipedia? But admittedly all of them however many there are goigles froze up on me again. 'Many' would be like 20 per cent. And for all I know, theyre all in the same family or jail cell or whatever (yes so in other countries inmates have phones all the time that means they can use the internet. In North Korea the young ladies al gore rescued had televisions in their rooms. Tell me if you need the citation. I know, in Iran they have the pool but that they have here now too in North Dakota or somewhere). I haven't been doing it constantly because Ive only been editing for a week or two, and didnt get a single complaint until 3 days ago. My edits all made 'usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject' neutral. They got in a tizzy over their biased stuff being balanced, and complaint frenzy. Again, doesnt matter. not the point. by their own admission usually to make some kind of personal point about their opinions regarding the article subject. I never admitted to that. I deny that thats what I was doing. suspicion of bad faith, etc I never suspected you of bad faith. And saying walls of text doesn't have much to do with the fact no one bothered to respond to me at any time about any concerns. None of those warnings were careful or polite, and none of them responded to my prompt 'pardon me what" responses, which were the careful and polite phrasing you are claiming for yourself and just as wrong about as you are saying admitted I admitted pushing a personal opinion. Thats ridiculous. If you cant read the writing on the walls of text, how do you know to complain about my edits. meaningless extracts of editing guidelines, Thought WP:VOLUNTEER was an explanatory supplement and the MOS was a guideline, or similar. Upon this final warning for leaving yet more inappropriate WTF links That wasnt the final warning I am asked to "make a comment about how youre assuming good faith". which you never did, just as you never responded to any of my concerns, possibly because you consider WP:CONSENSUS a meaningless guideline? I don't know what to do next I feel like youre going to have your boyfriend shoot me with the silver revolver there now but honestly, you could just make the comment. I'm not going to comment about water in gas so someone has to park inside. I've been back through a couple of years of edits, cleaning up, and it's been like this all along. Theres no way youve been through more than two years of edits, because I signed up in November 2015 (check my edit log) and I only started editing about a month ago, if that. Again, really sick (needlejab? was that sleeping gas? oh, guy with poisonous 'orange' beer too last June) and absolutely great reason not to edit wikipedia. The way I used to explain it in the 15 years I read wikipedia without editing, "not your bear, dont give him sugar" (tea party, mr bear, one lump or two? everyone know what Im talking about?) The flurry of 'halt! stop! or else!' comments only started 3 days ago. This is like a standard template you use to make a bunch of bogus accusations before you ban someone. You could just ask I would have agreed without all this crap. Is it me or is that just so stupid? You know? Just "hello, we dont like your edits, youre using the keyboard you could get hurt yourself, can we agree on a ban." I would have said yes. I make an edit that says 'stan is fred' and I get this screeching 'youre a failure' box with some text added that says I said "farb is goldwinkle." And Im like what? excuse me? and while Im waiting for a response, after an hour or too Im like whats this they must be really busy they act like it was the end of the world (I think some people have cabin fever here, and again chief with the silver revolver, nice picture by the way) and then now their house must be on fire or something or maybe it just got so exciting you had to take an hour or two off ok. So yeah obviously Im the problem here. Im glad youre smoking something a lot better than I can get, is all I can say. So Im like ok well obviously they could not care less and I make another edit still nothing another or two I get the same thing from somebody else (supposedly) about some other edit but exact same thing. So all that all over again 5 times, which is how you end up with your four examples up there. You missed one. So, again, you could just be like the princess is really impressionable, we dont think youre a good influence (again you got me again admitting, you know Im not trying to argue with you at all) you dont want her to find out Im editing wikipedia ok because god knows Im not on facebook all right. I dont want to screw up your princess for you either. Better someone else should do it, huh? Ok, good then. I mean, I have some issues but I didnt come to this planet just to cause problems, thats ridiculous. Not even for you. I think this user actually does understand the rules but deliberately flouts them because they find it amusing. Well, Im not going to accuse you of making false accusations because you have a conflict of interest. Im not deliberately flouting any rules. I think this is a standard template for railroading somebody. You could just ask you know its so sad. They tick many of the boxes for WP:NOTHERE. How can I tick a box I have no idea what it is. Are you the ones with the pink bed and the parents. Who put you up to this. You need to be honest with me so I can help you. You know the guy with the syringe was probably driving when he ran down the kid, right? Her car and she got three years plus? You dont know how he put her under? I know it wasnt her car supposedly. You were on the jury? Whatd she do to annoy you. How can this be anything but trolling? I agree what you are doing is almost certainly nothing but trolling. But Im sure that doesnt stop you from getting people blocked. You could have just asked, I would have agreed because I feel bad for your feelings and I dont want you to shoot me. Or try again, if you put those guys up to that. They didnt use that on- well nevermind. Hope it wasnt registered to you. Is it me or that kid have the guys name tag. (Stop at the same place as the shooting) Not sure if trolling is the right word, but disruption definitely appears to be - apart from the nature of the edits, the edit summaries give the game away. IMHO this user both walks and quacks like a duck. That may or may not be funny or clever, but there is no word for country hell that resembles a bird. For someone that claims to not have a personal interest in blocking edits to chemical castration, ku (poison) or contact agent, youre making "I should have needed a crook" type jokes here. Which brings me to my next point, every edit to wikipedia disrupts the way the article or whatever was before. Incidentally if you have to block me to keep her from talking to me, you have way bigger problems than wikipedia. But that you know hopefully will not become my issue. not that I could ever have anything against her. Or chief. Or the silver revolver in that polaroid. Who in the hell shoots anyone with a revolver thats ridiculous. Come on Ill say this again a real man stabs someone in the face with a rusty piece of metal. Oh you tried that already. Thats almost healed, by the way. Comes and goes. Pretty soon theyd be like 'what scar. no award." At least I still have the one from the axe (1994 on the back of the head) That still classified? What is the deal. All right theres more stuff here but Im having trouble remembering, so Ill just leave you with that. Thanks for all the attention, that was quite the experience, absolutely. Say hello to everybody for me. Was that peggy with the syringe? What is in that stuff. Whats with the gold foil blanket, and the purple jacket at the trailhead in the late 70s. Hows the wrist. Someday, shes going to get caught sticking that syringe into somebody, and theyre going to talk about AA in tents. Is that a ninja hanging off the side of the building? The assassin? The gold foil blanket go with the valley? Secret confessions of the heart time - its not just a fun username. The original party (of course, we didnt have calculators at parties, we had them at school, which youre probably not supposed to mention. You said 'calculator' first) trick or whatever that was involved dolly parton in a car wreck, which she just suffered in real life not too long ago, or in the last 15 years anyway whichever you prefer and I see nothing fun about that, not her, not anyone, and not after- again, whatever. Its a reference to the gynecomastia caused by chemical castration (some of you may recollect the article) which is definately not fun. Ive seen funnier names than yours too. No, wait, I havent. But I dont find your name all that funny. Erm, either. Im getting blocked because me name is not funny enough? Again, thats not a joke. I cant imagine why youd say Dolly Parton getting in a car accident is a joke, especially given theres a very good chance that was no coincidence. Thats just nasty Im sorry, if youre doing that on purpose. an example even discussed at Calculator spelling. what? no it isnt. If you're wrong about that, you could be wrong about all that other stuff too. Theres three or more of you, wikipedias in the real world, it doesnt matter if theres anything to the allegations or not. Id be an idiot not to accept a ban. So to recap someone going to go 'see? he agrees to a ban' and so thats whats going to happen. Except in the extremely rare chance someonell come along and say what a crock this really is and decline except we all know the shrill complaints so far which near as I can tell, I mean I could be wrong- so I cant even think at all so why should I be editing, right? Exactly. The complaints arent going to stop. So I think the 'reasons' are completely bogus but I know you dont want to attract attention to yourself and youre not supposed to use the keyboard at all, especially not to post on line so the reason is sound, even though the process could use a little polishing. That was just sad. You could just be like, look, this is a private e-dollhouse and we dont like how youre arranging the rooms. Theres always everything2.com if you absolutely *must*. Or even that was our family member and we dont want you posting about that, or if we say were still at war with Germany goddam it we want you to play along (for all I know, maybe you are. Hadnt ocurred to me. Armistice? - I know, Im a sucker). I can accept all those things. But that was just obnoxious, Im sorry folks. Its like pooping on someones porch because you dont want them to drive their car. You could just be like we dont want you to make any edits and not screw around and waste all this time with incredibly stupid excuses. No offense. (Unless two or more of you really are under 12 years old, in which case that was very commendable, youre away above your level and far advanced of what I was at your age, when all I could do was drool. Literally could not even turn on a television. Did you get hit by a car? Thanks for telling me. They do that to me literally all the time, by the way, at least junk bike season and Im not going to blame who causes that. Last one was Israel Keyes, if Im not mistaken. DNP 767? Guy was doing hit and runs all over town. But I see someone else has taken his place then) Feel free to let me know if you need more explanation. Its been real, its been fun, hasnt been real fun. "Its not like were stuck without fun," right? And again, sorry about these long a** posts. - 55378008a (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Intentionally trolling or not, whatever you call the above is enough, at least for me, to endorse a WP:CIR block if nothing else is more appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Wikipedia editors are a dying breed. The reason? Mobile | Andrew Brown | Opinion | The Guardian]

Intentionally trolling or not, whatever you call the above is enough, at least for me, to endorse a WP:CIR block if nothing else is more appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 15:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Its called what it says two lines above your post, a long post. If you like, you can call it an answer as well. - 55378008a (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

tea party, mr bear, one lump or two? everyone know what Im talking about? Seems more like a cry for help to me. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If I was blackmane I might say something about trolling. Thanks for the box; that looks great. Im pretty sure its not a cry for help. Not sure why someone would cry for help on wikipedia. Wait a minute is that a reference to dragging kids away from tea parties? Now that might be a cry for help, especially if the child snatcher is wearing a clown suit. - 55378008a (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, Ms. Koenig cried for help. Ah yes. Gotcha. Thatd be a clever reference, if thats what you intended. - 55378008a (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wow. For ~630 edits, far too much talking and far too little real listening. Anybody care to make a proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Never mind - indeffed. Ready to close. Next. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's enough of that. Blocked indefinitely. If they start to abuse the talk page, ping me and I'll revoke TPA. Katie^talk 16:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

History deletion at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia

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

---

Access to a lot of page history at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia was recently removed. See [36]. It looks like a mistake. Requesting that an administrator look into it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No mistake, Comrade! {{unsigned|Vladimir P.}}

FYI this comment was left by EEng [37] [38]. Shouldn't ANI be free from trolling and false signatures? Go have your clownfest somewhere else. --Pudeo (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No more, certainly, than it should be free from stuffed-shirt kvetching. Sorry if you were actually fooled into thinking the President of the Russian Federation had posted here. EEng 06:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Then again, it would certainly be amusing if Putin started using ANI as his personal sounding board, the way Trump uses Twitter. (Wolf Blitzer: "But just what is this 'ANI'? We asked a panel of Wikipedia editors to explain..." <grunts and crashing noises as knot of editors wrestle one another to the floor in the background>) EEng 14:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks like it started with this entry in the page history: "20:55, 6 January 2017‎ (Username or IP removed)‎". --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It also looks like the reversion has been handled by an oversighter, so regular admins (eg myself) cannot see the original text. I would trust that if there was oversight, the removal was grossly inappropriate material. --MASEM (t) 03:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"grossly inappropriate material" may be the case with the first entry that I mentioned above, but not with the 20 or 30 that followed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't redact a specific bit of text off of a page, just whole revisions. Every revision that contained whatever-it-was will have been removed, up until the one where offending passage was edited out. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Limitations and issues. —Cryptic 03:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The title should read alleged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That discussion happened a few weeks ago, and no real consensus was reached other than that lots of people dislike every title that has been suggested, including the current one. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Canvassing by Darkknight2149

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

---

Darkknight2149 and I have had a dispute over the articles Joker (comics) and Joker (character), over which he has opened an AfD for which he canvassed a large number sympathetic editors: DrRC, Favre1fan93, Darkwarriorblake, *Treker, AlexTheWhovian, Adamstom.97, Jack Sebastian, Atvica, SNUGGUMS, Rmaynardjr, TJH2018, Tenebrae, ZeEnergizer, Kailash29792, Emperor, Killer Moff, Argento Surfer, Jhenderson777, TriiipleThreat, [39].

What's particualarly conspicuous is how virtually none of the editors informed were those who have !voted against these sorts of proposals in the past, such as at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#RfC: Proposed rewording for instructions for disambiguation (which overturned WP:COMICS' OWNership of fictional characters) and Talk:Wolverine (character)#Page move back discussion, again. This sort of behaviour by the WP:COMICS project is highly disruptive and has long been a source of controversy (see the page-move histories of Wolverine (character), for example). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't canvass anyone. All of the messages I left were neutral. And a number of the people who I notified were ones who I had no idea what would say on the matter. In fact, one of the was Emperor, who actually supported creating Joker (character) (which I am against). And I notified all of the WikiProjects involved, not just WP:COMICS. I also informed you that I was starting a deletion discussion at Talk:Joker (comics) and you were tagged in the discussion.

I should also note that you trying to undermine me a number of times at Talk:Joker (comics) with false claims of WP:NOTHERE and other guidelines that I didn't break. Now that the deletion discussion is going against you, it figures you would file a false report. Should I mention all of the blatant unprovoked personal attacks you left me at Talk:Joker (comics)? DarkKnight2149 01:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"What's particualarly conspicuous is how virtually none of the editors informed were those who have !voted against these sorts of proposals in the past" - A lot of them weren't even involved. And like I mentioned earlier, at least one of them (Emperor) actually supported the existence of Joker (character), which I proposed the deletion for. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Emperor: I don't see anywhere that you and Darkknight2149 disagreed about the existence of the Joker (character) article—I only see you offering tips on how to improve the article as it was. Can you please enlighten us on Darkknight2149's comments? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I most certainly wasn't canvassed. If DarkKnight2149 on the other hand posted a message saying "please vote _____ here", then THAT would be canvassing. Simply informing someone of an ongoing discussion is not canvassing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is most definitely canvassing when the recipients are chosen for their likelihood to vote the way the canvasser hopes. See: Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification: "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"I don't see anywhere that you and Darkknight2149 disagreed about the existence of the Joker (character) article" - Further proof that you haven't even read the deletion discussion. Here, Emperor is quoted as speaking on behalf of the existence of Joker (character). You've got nothing here. And you're in no position to report me, given the personal attacks you left me at Talk:Joker (comics) that I graciously ignored. DarkKnight2149 01:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the issue here isn't that I canvassed, but rather that I left several detailed paragraphs regarding why I believe Joker (character) should be deleted and you have yet to provide a decent argument to the contrary? DarkKnight2149 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add that, if an administrator would like, I am willing to do a breakdown of each and every editor that I notified of the discussion right here. DarkKnight2149 02:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. Will we get a breakdown of all the editors in the discussions I directed you to but that you "neglected" to inform?
2. Why were you informing individual editors in the first place, when leaving notices at the appropriate WikiProjects would have sufficed?
3. Is it because I was the one who reminded you that you had to notify those WikiProjects, and you wanted to make sure that doing so wouldn't affect your intended outcome?

Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. You mean the ones you already pinged?

2. I did notify all of the other WikiProjects. Your point there is mute. And there's no crime against informing others of a deletion discussion that have experience with these types of articles and when you need extra opinions, just as long as you don't canvass for specific opinions (which I wasn't). Some of the people I notified were already involved to begin with.

3. Of course not. Is it because you didn't like the (so far) results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) that you accused me of canvassing? Because at least three of those editors that agree with me are ones that I didn't even notify. DarkKnight2149 02:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1. That's right—the ones I pointed you to multiple times but that you specifically avoided pinging. Why did you choose the word "already", by the way? Very strange choice of wording in the context.
2. "I did notify all of the other WikiProjects"—I didn't say you didn't. You should have stopped there.
3. No, it's because it's obvious why you chose to ping the editors you did and avoid pinging all the other editors you knew were involved (since I'd already pointed you to them). We know now that the only reason you pinged Emperor is because you linked to one of his comments in your deletion proposal.

So—why did you specifically avoid all 18 editors you knew were involved (and that I had to ping)? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now you have me really confused. At what point did you "point out" specific people for me to notify, let alone multiple times? When I notified the users, you hadn't pointed anyone out to me, which is why you acted surprised when you found out that I notified people of the discussion. Are we at the point where you're just making up fictional events now? DarkKnight2149 03:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's called you lying. You never pointed me to anyone. And if you did, provide the diff. Of course, you won't because you never did. DarkKnight2149 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You've been pointed enough times to the discussions. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As I have commented on the Deletion of the article in question this is Just my 2 cents, after reading all of this. This ANI looks as an attempt at retaliation as the concensus so far at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character) is to delete. Notifying others of a deletion of an article they may have an opinion on is not canvassing. I see nowhere DarkKnight2149 asked for anyone to give a specific opinion. WP:Boomerang comes to mind with this ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• It seems canvassy to me, because the invitees were all predictably against anything that seemed to reduce the "power" or "control" of WikiProject Comics over "their" article, no matter what the actual reasoning might be, or what the readership is actually best served by, or what other WP:P&G matters might be at issue, such as WP:SUMMARY. It's noteworthy that (so far) all or nearly all of the respondents that Darkknight2149 brought into the AfD discussion are WP:JUSTAVOTEing reflexively, doing no analysis of either article or any actual keep/delete rationales. E.g., they are claiming falsely that the the articles are redundant, when even 30 seconds looking at their content completely disproves this assertion. I'm not psychic and thus don't know what D'k'2149's intent was, but the effect has been precisely what WP:CANVASS was written to curtail, and this result was entirely predictable from the invite pattern. So, this seems like a duck/spade matter to me. CANVASS, like everything else here, is interpreted per its spirit and intent, not legalistically and with an eye to loopholes. Neutral wording of notice, to a highly non-neutral invite list, is not some magical escape clause, sorry. This was clearly canvassing, and it should be addressed as such.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it wasn't canvassing. And your entire argument for why it was canvassing has to do with your own P.O.V. about the WikiProjects "owning" everything and not about my motive itself. In order for it to be canvassing, my intent has to be to go and specifically look for people that share my point of view or to post a invite that is biased enough to influence their point of view. My invites were neutral and they were all sent to people who have experience dealing with these types of articles or were already involved with the discussion before the deletion was proposed. And if you want to talk about predictability, it's funny that you're supporting Curly Turkey here after supporting his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character). And as previously mentioned, there have so far been three different people who I never tagged or notified of the discussion that have supported the deletion as well, and that was almost from as soon as I posted it. Talk about those odds. DarkKnight2149 04:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You've been caught with your pants down, so I guess your only option is to drown the discussion in verbiage to discourage others from examining the evidence. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, you're entirely wrong here DarkKnight, but for a different reason. You did /canvass/ that was the express intent, leaving messages on other's talk pages regarding a deletion discussion is canvassing. The greater issue is whether that canvassing was done to influence the outcome of the AfD. Canvassing is allowed, per WP:CANVASS; In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
  Now, the rules regarding canvassing are in order; "Limited posting" is acceptable, message must be neutral, the audience should be non-partisan (or if partisan both sides invited), and the canvassing must be on-wiki. I don't know exactly what counts as "spam" posting, but, twenty notifications is an awful lot. You should only post notifications to users who might reasonably be inferred to be interested. Such as the creator and significant contributors to the article. Which you did not, only a couple of the people notified have had any interaction with the article whatsoever.
  For that matter, your spate of notifications seem a bit random, I can't tell what the connection most of the editors you've notified would have to the article, the subject, or the AfD. Though I will grant that you're postings were both neutral and transparent.
  That said, no I have to agree with DarkKnight, just the section "Cultural Impact" in Joker (character) which accounts for much (about 50/60%) of the actual prose in the article is a blatant replica of the same section in Joker (comics) placed into the article here under the guise of "expanding the article". Though I also recognize the argument that the merger should happen from "comic" to "character" is a logical one.
  As a non-admin I can only offer up recommendation, they are as follows; 1. Let the AfD play out as normal, 2. If deleted, merge the content into the article Joker (comics), and 3. start a discussion up on whether to retitle the article from "comics" to "character". I see at most 6-10k bytes of content that will actually be transferred from "character" to "comics", so it will have a barely noticeable impact on the article. I see no reason to justify a split unless a much, much, better article can be written that would justify a split from the main. Keep in mind that Joker (comics) is a GA article, so any merger would be best served if done in line with the requirements of a GA article. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should re-phrase: I wasn't disruptively canvassing, as Curly Turkey is suggesting. And given his current disruptive attempts to influence the deletion discussion (see the diffs below), his uncivil behaviour at Talk:Joker (comics), and the fact that he has been blocked for harassment and personal attacks more than once ([40]), I'm beginning to think that Curly Turkey is either aware that my intentions weren't disruptive or he simply doesn't care.

But as I said earlier, I'm willing to provide a full breakdown of each editor that I notified of the discussion if an administrator wants me too. It would include my full reasoning as to why I notified who I did. Mark my words when I say that Darkknight2149 has nothing to hide. DarkKnight2149 05:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Darkknight2149: Re "it's funny that you're supporting Curly Turkey here after supporting his position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker (character)." There's nothing "funny" about it at all; this ANI request is mentioned prominently at the AFD, so of course I looked into the nature of the dispute and the actions that led to it, and the previous discussions behind those, since they may have bearing on the AfD or vice versa. I also have a history of involvement in the general topic (including editing of the comics MoS page and naming convention, making me kind of "expert witness" in an AfD that centers on its interpretation). But I also have a history of direct conflict with CurlyTurkey in the topic area. So, your insinuation of a conspiratorial WP:FACTION against you is laughable. (That said, I believe the disputatiousness between me and CT to have resolved itself, and I certainly hope it remains historical.) The fact of the matter is that I looked carefully at the facts in the AfD, and the facts in this related ANI, and remember the past history (about the Hulk and similar WP:PRIMARY and WP:DAB debates involving comics). I treat both the AfD and the ANI as case-by-case matters. In point of fact, I quite frequently oppose splits and propose merges when it comes to fiction-related articles. But this is not a case of fancruft leading to inapproprirate forks; it really is an "are we writing this for encyclopedia users or for comic collectors?" matter. And this ANI really is about whether the notices were appropriate or were canvassing, not about who does and doesn't like you (not something I'd even formulated on opinion about).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I can't see how this is anything other than canvassing. There is no need to personally invite so many people and so far everyone who has been invited has given the same opinion. Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite? I myself was pinged to the AFD by curly turkey because I commented on a 2014 RFC that I barely remember (but at least that is made clear in the AFD). The whole discussion there now is dubious and I pity the poor admin who attempts to close it. I suggest that everyone who was canvassed by personal invite or ping and has given an opinion at the AFD is tagged as such and if there is not a good explanation as to why Darknight decided to invite the above editors they should at least get a strong warning. AIRcorn (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• The message itself is not canvassing as it was neutral. However, I also do question why over a dozen users were notified about the RfD. Was it pure randomness or was there some reason? Normally, a user would notify the creator and contributors. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It doesn't take long to work out where other editors sympathies lie in a topic area. Therefor no matter how neutral a message is, if you only bring an AFD to the attention of editors you think are going to !vote a certain way then it is defiantly canvassing. Doing this disrupts the whole concept of consensus, which is tenuous enough at AFD. To my mind it comes down to why they chose to send personal invites to this select group. Either way it looks very dodgy. AIRcorn (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that despite the fact that I was notified by Darkknight2149 I had already decided my position and stated that I thought it was a useless copy of an already existing article. As a matter of fact I have had this article on my watchlist for a while now to see if it improved to something useful, but no, it's still and will probably continue to be a redundant copy. I'm not sure if the notification was posted on my talkpage before I had the time to save my edit on the deletion page but none the less I would not appreciate of my oppinion was invalidated just becuse of the message, (which I as far as I could tell was rather neutral even if I knew that he wanted it deleted.)★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the problem with Darknights decision to send out the notifications, it muddies the waters. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that but my reasoning for not wanting to keep the article is still as clear right now with our without the notification. I have not interacted very much with Darkknight during my time on wikipedia nor have I commented at all on the Joker articles as far as I can remember so I don't see how he could have known that I would be supportive of his position. I'm more of an inclusionist than a deletionist in general. I don't belive it is fair to me or any of the other editors to assume that we would be swayed by Darkknight notifying us.★Trekker (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing out of the ordinary with notifying people of a discussion. These things often take long to materialise and so inviting people who have experience dealing with these articles is fine. And saying that they all share my opinion is incorrect. Some of the people that are notified, such as Argento Surfer and Emperor, were already involved in the discussion (neither of which agree with me, by the way), some were on my watchlist, and some were frequent editors of the WikiProjects or at the Joker articles.

As for Curly Turkey's ridiculous "Why didn't you notify random people from the discussion I kept linking", not notifying the exact people that Curly Turkey wants me to notify is not "vote stacking". And to answer his question, I think this just about sums it up. DarkKnight2149 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"Why didn't you notify random people"—is nothing like anything I've said. You've canvassed by mass-notifying people you knew would !vote for your POV. This is made worse by the fact that you knew a list of people who would be interested in the subject but avoided notifying any of them. You should've notifyied nobody by the WikiProjects and the main contributors to the article. Stop digging yourself this hole.

"There is nothing out of the ordinary with notifying people of a discussion."—I've already pointed you to vote stacking. Yes, there's a lot wrong with the way you notified people. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. We've already established that a lot of the people that I notified are people who I had no idea would agree with me and have disagreed with me in the past. Some have disagreed with me on this issue. And yes, some of the people I notified were from the WikiProject and the edit histories of the Joker articles. You are just upset that the deletion discussion isn't going how you hoped. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Leaving messages on ~20 different, selected editors' talk pages is definitely canvassing, whether or not the message is neutral. Announcements should only be left on neutral pages like WikiProjects. Why someone felt the need to notify ~20 editors individually is beyond me, but it's obvious canvassing and vote-stacking. Now that the damage is done, hopefully the closing admin can discount or depreciate the canvassed !votes. I recommend using the template {{notavote}} and tagging all of the canvassed !votes with {{subst:canvassed|username}}. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Second Softlavender's solution. Also confirming that the IP below is me. Don't ask. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: @Softlavender: @Aircorn: Except I too have clashed with some of the editors that I have allegedly canvassed. And yes, some have disagreed with me, even BEFORE I notified them of the discussion. I have also offered to do a full breakdown of the users that I notified more than once now. There's simply no way it was "vote stacking". And in regards to what SMcCandlish said, this isn't my first rodeo either. I also have experience dealing with these situations. And as for the WP:COMICS argument, I notified all of the WikiProjects. If fact, some of the individual users that I notified were from WikiProject Television. There is no case here. DarkKnight2149 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Meh. If we do it Softlavender's way, all it does is alert the closer to read the discussion and its history closely which is not a bad thing; it doesn't instruct the closer as to what arguments they have to weight in what way. There does seem to be a "case" here or so many people wouldn't be agreeing this was canvassing (or close enough for rock'n'roll). ANI tends not to go well for anyone who insists that everyone having an issue with what that person did is just wrong (BT;DT!). I see very low likelihood of any sanctions, but you should at least come away from this with the message that this sort of thing is widely considered canvassing. If I may suggest it, this is the sort of note I leave, in every project, guideline, etc., talk page that seems relevant, and often also at VPPOL (even CENT if the matter could affect a large number of articles), but never individual talk pages:

Example
RfC about [whatever] FYI  – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. Please see [[WT:Whatever page the discussion is at#Name of thread]], a request for comments on [whatever the topic is, WITHOUT ANY EDITORIALIZING about the topic, the participants, or anything at all]. ~~~~

And just leave it at that. I may also ping, at the discussion, in a comment clearly labelled as for pings, all previous respondents if this is round 2 or 3 or whatever of a drawn out debate (including closing admins of previous ones). No selectivity. This approach has only resulted in complaints twice that I can recall, and in both cases no one took them seriously other than the complainers. Hope that helps.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Dark Knight, it was canvassing. If you wanted to notify participants in previous discussions, all that is necessary is to post on the project or article talk pages where those discussions occurred. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Aside from a large portion of the users notified (and not even all of the them) happening to agree with me, what other real evidence do you have that it was vote stacking? How are all of these users connected? How was I supposed to just know what their opinion was before I notified them?

• I've clashed with some of these users in the past (such as Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97).
• Not all of them were from WP:COMICS, so that erases that argument.
• Some were involved to begin with (such as Argento Surfer, DarkwarriorBlake, Emperor), and have disagreed with me on the topic that I allegedly canvassed.
• The notifications were certainly nuetral.
• I didn't even notify DangerousJXD and Comatmebro of the discussion, and they agreed with me almost as soon as the deletion discussion was published (and I have no history with the latter).
• I have already offered to do a breakdown of all the users that I notified more than once and am still willing to do so.

So really, explain to me how I was supposed to just know these people's opinions before they even left it. DarkKnight2149 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence of previous issues with canvassing or any warnings about such issues so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Darkknight that they did not message these editors with the express purpose of getting them to !vote a certain way. Saying that, the notified editors do appear to have been subjectively chosen by Darkknight, which should not be done even if you have noble intentions. I would actually be more comfortable with this situation if it was everyone that was involved in a previous related discussion.

I still think the !votes that come from notified editors should be tagged with {{Canvassed}} to aid the closer and keep everything transparent. It says "An editor has expressed a concern that user name has been canvassed to this discussion", which pretty much covers the situation and can be interpreted by the closer as the deem fit. The linking to the AFD from here will bring it to the attention of many uninvolved editors so hopefully it can still be fairly closed.

When advertising an XFD (or RFC, RFA etc) it is important to not just avoid canvassing, but to also avoid giving the appearance of canvasing. There are plenty of wikiprojects and noticeboards where these can be advertised (plus we have article alerts and del sorting) if there is a worry about a lack of numbers. Otherwise you are just inviting trouble. Hopefully Darkstar realises this now. AIRcorn (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Aircorn: In regards to that "subjectively chosen" remark, I have already stated multiptle times that I am willing to do a FULL BREAKDOWN of EVERYONE that I supposedly canvassed. No one has accepted the offer, so I'm probably going to do it anyway just to debunk these misplaced Canvassing claims. And leaving a note saying an editor expressed a canvassing concern is useless if these disruptive lies are going to stay up. DarkKnight2149 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite? AIRcorn (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also it is better to label individual !votes as then the closer knows which ones were notified to the discussion and which ones weren't. This is something the notes don't do. They can then decide how much weight to give them (which they should do anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Since people seem to be very forgetful in this discussion, I'm going to go ahead and repeat this post:

Aside from a large portion of the users notified (and not even all of the them) happening to agree with me, what other real evidence do you have that it was vote stacking? How are all of these users connected? How was I supposed to just know what their opinion was before I notified them?

• I've clashed with some of these users in the past (such as Jack Sebastian and Adamstom.97).
• Not all of them were from WP:COMICS, so that erases that argument.
• Some were involved to begin with (such as Argento Surfer, DarkwarriorBlake, Emperor), and have disagreed with me on the topic that I allegedly canvassed.
• The notifications were certainly nuetral.
• I didn't even notify DangerousJXD and Comatmebro of the discussion, and they agreed with me almost as soon as the deletion discussion was published (and I have no history with the latter).
• I have already offered to do a breakdown of all the users that I notified more than once and am still willing to do so.

So really, explain to me how I was supposed to just know these people's opinions before they even left it.

DarkKnight2149 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

No one has provided any evidence that I vote stacked, aside from "Well, most of them agreed with you". DarkKnight2149

It was clearly canvassing. If you wanted to notify participants in previous discussions, all that is necessary is to post on the project or article talk pages where those discussions occurred. Softlavender (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You repeating "it was clearly canvassing" over and over is not getting any closer to providing proof, nor is ignoring the genuine points that I just made. DarkKnight2149 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"Darkknight how did you come up with this list of people to invite?" - Good question. I will do the breakdown of it tomorrow. Frankly, my anxiety regarding this entire situation right now is through the roof and it has been a long day. Hopefully the breakdown will be able to clear some of this up. DarkKnight2149 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrator action needed

WarMachineWildThing's comment about retaliation sounds about right. The user is now being disruptive by pushing his WP:CANVAS claim to the forefront of the deletion discussion, and is now making further unproven accusations against me. ([41], [42], [43], [44]) I'm not even going to bother trying to remove it or cause an edit war. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the disruptive and unproven notes from the top of the discussion that were placed there to influence it. If Curly Turkey tries to edit war with this, I will inform this discussion. An unbiased administrator opinion would be nice right about now. DarkKnight2149 04:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, Curly Turkey is not only putting up false unproven notes to influence the discussion, but he is now edit warring with them as well ([45]). Can an administrator please step in? DarkKnight2149 04:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone here. I guess it's too much to ask that you both just drop the accusations and go back to editing? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I tried to remove the two unproven accusations that were placed at the top of the deletion discussion by Curly Turkey to influence it, but he keeps re-adding it and now is threatening me with WP:3RR. DarkKnight2149 05:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Just stop screwing with other people's comments. Jesus. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Or you can remove the accusations from the top of discussion, as they are unproven and do not supersede the discussion. If you want those accusations up so badly, you can put them down with your actual comment instead of at the top of the discussion. They are not official notes, and you know damn well that you're just trying to influence the discussion... And it's disruptive. DarkKnight2149 05:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight, I suggest that you leave it alone. If we were to remove all "false" accusations, ANI would be full of reverts. Leave it to the admins. It's evidence and it should be examined by admins. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not evidence. It's Curly Turkey being disruptive by placing unproven claims as "notes" at the top of the discussion to try to influence it. He, again, knows what he is doing. Even when you go back to the personal attacks at Talk:Joker (comics), he's been disruptive from the start. DarkKnight2149 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The "notes" are certainly at least potentially problematic. If there is a pattern of dubious behavior from anyone involved here, maybe WP:ARBCOM might be the way to go. Otherwise, as someone who expressed an opinion on the AfD page based on seeing it mentioned in the thread here, maybe the best thing to do would be to let the discussion proceed without further interference until it closes. If there are any further disruptive or problematic edits there or elsewhere, that might be different, and, maybe, under those circumstances, ArbCom might be a better choice. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove the notes, but Curly Turkey clearly isn't. DarkKnight2149 18:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're "willing" to remove the notes. What kind of ridiculous comment is this? Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes you have yet to prove. If you want them up so badly, they can go with your comment. They don't supersede the discussion. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Everyone here who isn't either themselves one of the people you canvassed (i.e., regardless of whether they agree with you on the substance of the ANI, they have a bias against the idea that you were canvassing) or someone who only showed up here because they have a grudge against Curly Turkey (i.e., regardless of whether they sincerely believe you were canvassing, have a bias against acknowledging that you were canvassing) is in agreement that the notes belong. The only effect of removing the notes would be to potentially mislead the closer: leaving the notes doesn't force the closer to disregard everything said by the canvassed parties. 182.251.154.144 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a very dubious claim. Do you want to put your money were your mouth is and prove that? Because the notes (especially the second one) are entirely unproven. The first one is at least justified in this discussion, but the second one is a lie posted with no evidence (a blatant violation of WP:No personal attacks: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". And do you know who has already proven themselves to be biased in this discussion? I'm looking at you! ("someone is focusing too much on one thing and ignoring the bigger picture") DarkKnight2149 23:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If the notes are inappropriate, let someone uninvolved remove them. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I was notified of the discussion by DK2149 with a neutral invitation, probably because I had recently been involved in the discussion at Talk:Joker (comics). I am unsure if he interpreted my comment as being in-line with his view or not, but I did not support the deletion nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't. DarkKnight2149 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Curly Turkey

I should probably point out that Curly Turkey has been looking for ways to undermine me since the discussion started at Talk:Joker (comics). At first, he used multiple personal attacks, including implying that I am just a basement dwelling fanboy ([46]) and that I still lived with my mother ([47]). Turkey only stopped with the personal attacks when I threatened to report him ([48]), yet he still continued to try to invalidate my arguments with false claims of WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDONTHEARTHAT, that I was starting drama, and other baseless accusations. So it only makes sense that, as soon as he found out that I started a deletion discussion and notified other users, he would jump at the chance of filing a WP:CANVASS report. He also placed these unproven accusations as notes at the top of the deletion discussion to try and influence it ([49], [50], [51], [52]). What we have here is someone who wants the discussion to go his way. DarkKnight2149 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think, maybe, ArbCom might be the way to go here. John Carter (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment User:Hijiri88 here. Can't log in on my iPad for whatever reason. I have had interactions with both the parties in this case, as well as several of the people who were notified of the AFD, so I'm not sure how neutral I can be, but I just wanted to point out that this is difficult to interpret as "implying that [someone is] just a basement dwelling fanboy" unless one is actively trying to do so. It reads to me the same as "take your head out of the ground" or "take your fingers out of your ears", and it would be extremely surprising to see the person who has himself written dozens of articles on comic books engage in old-fashioned offensive stereotyping of comic-book fanboys who still live with their parents in their 20s and 30s. This similarly says nothing about "living with one's mother". Furthermore, claiming that someone "stopped with the personal attacks" after one threatened to report him, and then going ahead and reporting him anyway a week later with old evidence of borderline personal attacks is not a good idea.

And yes, a neutral notification left on the talk pages of a dozen or more sympathetic users is definitely canvassing, as it is covered under both "spamming" and "votestacking". Claiming that just because the wording of the notification was neutral then it doesn't count as canvassing shows either a failure to understand our canvassing guideline or a deliberate attempt to pretend not to understand it.

182.251.140.111 (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• It should of course be noted that the rephrased versions of the comment here offered above, particularly "take your head out of the ground," are also fairly obvious personal attacks and at best dubiously acceptable. John Carter (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination to say that someone is focusing too much on one thing and ignoring the bigger picture, nor is that remotely similar to implying that someone is a sad-sack who lives in their parents' basement, which is clearly how DK was trying to present it. 182.251.140.111 (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he was stating "take your head out of the ground", but in a manner that further implies that I am just basement dwelling fanboy. Curly Turkey's behaviour was unacceptable. DarkKnight2149 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

DK, you can't reach a private agreement with someone that if they cease their mildly inappropriate behaviour (it was uncivil, but you are stretching your interpretation to imply that Curly Turkey, a user whose contributions to Wikipedia are largely centered around comics, speculative fiction and Japanese culture, is stereotyping you as a "nerd" who still lives with his parents) you will not report them, only to come back a week later and bring up said (week-old) uncivil behaviour as revenge for their reporting your (ongoing) disruption on an AFD. That's not how it works. All sanctions on Wikipedia are meant to be preventative, so if anyone needs to be sanctioned here, it is you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't edit speculative fiction articles, Hijiri, so there goes your whole argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That would depend on how you define the term, I guess. I use it the way SF Debris does, to be essentially a catch-all for "science fiction, fantasy, and most horror that could reasonably be considered to fall under either of the other two genres". I think he only does that to get away with reviewing fantasy properties even though his moniker was originally supposed to be short for "Science Fiction Debris". I was referring to your work on articles like Little Nemo (1911 film), which admittedly would be more accurately described as an edit to an article on the history of animation and/or cinema (a topic that in reality is just as nerdy as comic books or Japanese culture, mind you). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You play a hilarious straight man, Hijiri. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't agree with John Carter that ArbCom is needed here. This is just another Wikipedia squabble -- they come and go, and life goes on. Neither editor has covered themselves with glory. CurlyTurkey's personal aspersions are living up to his nickname, and DK's obvious widespread canvassing is in violation of a core guideline. Let's just move on. Tag the canvassed !votes (note that CT canvassed too [via ping] after DK did) on the AfD, let the AfD run its course, and then get back to doing other things on other articles. Softlavender (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this rises to ArbCom level either, by itself. However, this is part of a long-running pattern, involving additional WP:COMICS editors and other articles. If this sort of dispute turns ugly again, it might actually be time for WP:RFARB. I already expended considerably energy trying to mediate between various camps a year or two ago, when various levels of Hell were raised about the comics MoS and naming conventions, but I guess insufficient progress was made on that front. The content-related aspects of the issue can be discarded, with just the WP:CONLEVEL and other policy matters, plus behavioral ones, addressed as needed by ArbCom if it needs to "go there" at some point. This reminds me very strongly of the "infobox wars" and how steeped their were in OWN/VESTED sentiments by particular wikiprojects. I appears to me that one or two ArbCom decisions that have come down against wikiprojects' attempts to exert territorial authority over topics/categories, against other editors and against site-wide expectations, have been insufficient to get the point across, probably because the decisions were too narrow. They seem to have resulted in an interpretation along the lines, "that was about infoboxes and classical music, so it doesn't apply to my project when we're trying to control titles, primary topics, and scope in comics articles").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bury anything here. Re-read that discussion. Those are blatant personal attacks. He also violated WP:GOODFAITH multiple times. Curly Turkey has been uncivil from the start and seems determined to undermine my part in the discussion in any way he can. The evidence is there. DarkKnight2149 18:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Uh, okay. Doesn't seem to relate to anything I said. Burying? Huh?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take a look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, shall we?:

What is considered to be a personal attack? "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." - Curly Turkey is seen doing this multiple times at Talk:Joker (comics). He tried to say that I am just a biased comic book fanboy, that I was simply trying to start drama, and (in a massive assumption of bad faith) falsely accused me of breaking multiple guidelines including WP:NOTHERE.

But he is not using your personal affiliations to do so. He is referring specifically to the Wikipedia activity with which he disagrees. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." - He said that I was a basement dwelling fanboy and implied the same about the entirety of WP:COMICS.

Let's be clear, here: he didn't "say" that. He said something that you chose to interpret that way, in violation of AGF, and I am telling you that it simply makes no sense to interpret it that way since Curly Turkey (a user focused primarily on comics, speculative fiction and Japanese culture) is almost certainly just as offended by those stereotypes as you are. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." - These are extreme examples of these. At least for Note #1, he has a WP:ANI report. The second accusation is 100% baseless and was made up by Curley Turkey, who placed it at the top of the discussion to influence it. And he's refusing to let anyone remove it.

I'm sorry, but your actions on that very page appear to support Curly Turkey's second assertion, so saying that he didn't provide evidence in the same post is at the very least wikilawyering. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why am I just mentioning this now? I'm trying to demonstrate that Curly Turkey has been trying to undermine my part in the discussion since the beginning. He isn't exactly a credible source for anything on this discussion, at this point. This especially goes for the fact that I am a Veteran Editor who has NEVER had a history of disruptive editing and is known for strictly following the guidelines. Curly Turkey, on the other hand, has been blocked for personal attacks and harrassment more than once already. As for Hijiri88's comment about "ignoring the bigger picture", you and SMcCandlish can take your petty biases elsewhere. You simply agreeing with his position in the discussion does not make it any less of a personal attack. And SMcCandlish's P.O.V. about WikiProjects "owning everything" holds no water in this discussion. DarkKnight2149 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate your not making accusations without evidence. I do have a bias, of sorts, in this matter. I experienced your disruption first-hand on Talk:Mr. Freeze, where you attempted to downplay the influence of the 1960s Fox TV series in favour of the (retroactively fabricated) story that DC Comics created the character and all the Fox TV show did was "rename and popularize him". (You ignored the fact that sources published by DC Comics and their affiliates are inherently biased and unreliable when it comes to this question, since DC and their parent company were involved in a decades-long rights dispute with Fox over that TV show; the former would of course want to deny that any character with the remotest connection to the pre-show comic books was in fact created for the TV show.) So yeah, I am biased in favour of Curly Turkey's assertion that you are downplaying the role non-comics culture has played in the development (and encyclopedic notability!) of these characters. The minor CIVIL-violations that you keep calling "personal attacks" were resolved a week before this ANI thread opened, and you are only bringing them up now (in direct violation of your own agreement with Curly Turkey that you would not try to report him if he stopped!) because you saw this ANI thread turning against you. No one here who isn't themselves biased agrees with you, so trying to claim that SMcCandlish and I only disagree with you because we are "biased" is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, CurlyTurkey is also a comics nerd. So am I. "Basement dwelling fanboy" is hilarious and is a self-caricaturizing comment about the inner nature of all geeks and how we can get. It's not like CT really believes you live in a basement (I live in a warehouse, which almost counts). While maybe we should be, us graphic novel nerds, a protected class, we're not; it's nothing like a race, gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, etc. Thicken your skin a little. Lots of us talk like this, and we usually do it with regard to groups of which we're members. Just today I made a "muh guns articles!" joke about territorial behavior in firearm articles (I'm an NRA member). Same thing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've never been blocked for "harassment", DarkKnight. You've already buried that discussion. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No, now you are just giving him an excuse. In the context of the discussion at Talk:Joker (comics), there was nothing ironic or self-deprecating about the remarks. It was obviously done in an attempt to undermine the arguments made by myself and apparently WP:COMICS as a whole. And Curly Turkey never said or even implied that all comic fans are basement dwellers, just myself and WP:COMICS. And you continue to completely miss the point. If I were simply trying to report the personal attacks, I would have reported them when he first made them. All of the evidence I have provided demonstrates Curly Turkey's disruptive attempts to undermine the opposition and have the discussion go in his favour.

@Curly Turkey: To quote, well, you - "You're not burying this one." Your block log says it all. You were unblocked "Per agreement to return to dialogue instead of confrontation", an agreement which you clearly haven't honoured. DarkKnight2149 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You've clearly lied and intend to stick with the dramah. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Now there is the massive assumption of bad faith you already gave at Talk:Joker (comics) ([53], [54])! Only now, you are doing it to undermine my arguments here, hence proving my points and shooting yourself in the foot. And need I remind you that you started this entire discussion? DarkKnight2149 23:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't lie, you won't be accused of lying. You have the opportunity now to retract it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that bringing up someone else's unrelated block log out of the blue is extremely uncivil behaviour and makes me think that if DarkKnight doesn't retract it he might deserve a block himself lest he continue in such behaviour. People get blocked for all kinds of obscure technical reasons. I have been blocked for logging into a legitimate alternate account for a legitimate reason after taking a self-imposed ban on using it, and because someone with whom I was in an IBAN decided to stalk my edits and report me for something that almost no one now believes was a violation on my part, and have seen other users get blocked and immediately unblocked for reporting someone who was edit-warring with them. The specific block in question is from 10 months ago, and was withdrawn after only a few hours by the same admin, who had admitted that they were ignorant of the context in which they had block CT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have valued CT's contributions for some time. This scenario seems to be driven by cumulative personal negativity. Is CT willing to apologise for the personal attacks and undertake to try to distance himself from the emotional baggage? I'm unfamiliar with the specific situations, but surely there have been provocations by the other parties. Tony (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my frustrations with WP:COMICS came across as personal slights against DarkKnight. Sorry if that's the case. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Curly, I'm going to be perfectly honest. I wasn't going to retract anything and I had an entire response prepared explaining why bringing up the log wasn't "out of the blue". However, an apology (even if a somewhat indirect one) is a major step in an honourable direction. For that reason, I completely retract the specific statement regarding your block log.

But one thing I think you should understand is that nothing I have said is a lie. I genuinely feel that the reason all of this is happening is as an attempt to undermine my side of the discussion, going back to the comments made at Talk:Joker (comics) and your behaviour since. DarkKnight2149 04:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The lie I referred to was saying I was blocked for "harrassment more than once already"—you know full well I've never been blocked for such a thing. Disputing your points is not disruptive, nor is notifying potential !voters and the closer of your canvassing. My less-than-polite comments last week emerged from constant years-long frustration with WP:COMICS rewriting the rules to conform to their worldview at the expense of the greater community and the general reader. That behaviour needs to stop. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Drmies: "It would seem that the WP:ANI discussion was closed with a lack of substantial evidence that I canvassed. I just wanted to make it clear that, as a reputable user of this Wiki, I fully intend on forgeting these WP:CANVASS accusations happened and going right back to editing as usual. I feel no guilt, as I am an innocent editor." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate information being repeatedly being put back on Royal Rumble (2017)

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

---

For the past few days me (User:I Am Awesome 061796) and User:KC Roosters have been editing the Announced Royal Rumble match participants and keep debating on the status of a wrestler by the name of Goldberg to if he is a Raw superstar or an unassigned superstar with him claiming he is a Raw superstar and me as an unassigned superstar and I Have tried to show him where I got the information from which is the official WWE.com's roster page where if you go to it at http://www.wwe.com/superstars and scroll down to the tab that says current, which is just below the championships, and make the tab Raw superstars and look for Goldberg you cannot find him. He uses the Wikipedia's WWE Raw roster as his source for his side of the argument and when I tried to explain my reasons he ignores it and reverts it to his past edit. In my edits I even made a reference to the same website I have showed you both on the article and on his user talk page and he has deleted both without any explanation to his actions. So I was hoping that you can intervene and fix the problem whether you rule in my favor or his as long as the problem is solved, so can you please help this situation out?

The discussion above is closed. 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:Class.wrestling

The following discussion is closed. 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'd like to ask for a block for User:Class.wrestling. He is clearly engaged in edit warring even after both myself AND User:KC Roosters have repeatedly warned him over his disruptive editing on the article Royal Rumble (2017) Vjmlhds (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Digging a hole; [55]. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump "compromised" claims

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

---

The new article Donald Trump "compromised" claims needs to go. "Rules" prevent blanking but this story is so thin and such a blatant BLP vio, an admin should delete immediately. We don' break news or even worse, publish rumors of news with serious BLP concerns. Delete and salt. --DHeyward (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree that we need to be extremely careful with our phrasing and our sourcing on this issue, to say that there can't be an article on this topic is somewhat absurd, given that a vast array of impeccable reliable sources are reporting on the allegations, their veracity or lack thereof, and their impact on Trump's pending presidency. There are lots of unverified claims and BLP concerns related to the Podesta emails, but that didn't prevent us from writing an article about them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't let's have another Gamergate etc that ends up in semantics and quibbles about news sourcing. Apply WP:NOTNEWS and move on. When/if decent sources reflect on the historical record then we might cover it. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No, NBSB, reliable sources are not reporting on the articles premise. They are reporting what an unreliable source has said and most refuting it. Recently that's been called "fake news." Remember the Rolling Stone rape story? The mainstream media reported on Rolling Steam and it became a massive BLP problem when it fell apart. Let's not play that game. This has BLP implications and needs to go. --DHeyward (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just ignore this article from Politico, this article from NPR, this article from the NYT, this article from CNN, etc. If you could cite the reliable sources that are, as you claim, "refuting," these allegations, that would be helpful, because we can and should add those refutations to the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those sources are claiming Trump is compromised (the title of the article). They are reporting on Buzzfeed. It's garbage and you are smart enough to know that. --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Should have been speedied as a BLP-vio (WP:G10). No need for an AfD. A viral article does not get its own Wikipedia article. If there is ever enough coverage on the subject matter to merit a content fork from the base article, create something then and only then, but not now. By the way, for the latter reason, perhaps should not be salted. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This definitely seems like a BLP violation. Even the main source publishing the story (Buzzfeed News) says their story is unsubstantiated and full of errors. If something more substantial appears, then it'd warrant its own article - it definitely wouldn't be a content fork - but this is highly speculative at the moment. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of articles about it at https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5n8z88/megathread_intelligence_report_claims_russia_has/ which makes it notable in it's own right. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Suggest speedy deleting. Respected sources like NYTimes and WaPo are calling them "unsubstantiated" and "unconfirmed" claims (see article afd for links). This is too borderline, even if the rumours are bring covered widely. EvergreenFir (talk) 09:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• As I commented in the AfD thread: I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia should have a global 3-day "cooling period" on using any sensationalist news stories as reliable sources in the domain of US politics. — JFG ^talk 10:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• As it stood it was only reporting the allegations, and not reflecting the real story that it is another bit of "fake news" (as reported in reliable sources). That was as bad as some of the Pizzagate stuff we had here and was a WP:G10 violation, and I have speedy deleted it as such. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Semi-protection need in 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.

---

Hello, can I get a semi-protection on my talk page? I've been subject to constant harassment by an unregistered MAC address. I could reply to their attacks but I do not want to stoop to their level. Thank you. -Human like you (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All I'm seeing in the history of your Talk page are standard warnings. Can you please point out which diffs constitute "constant harassment"? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There is none and the warnings were absolutely correct resulting in Human like you being warned at WP:AN3. They are just wasting our time here. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat

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

---

Laurianne380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed content from Thierry Claveyrolat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with two edit summaries (machine translation)

• tout est faux. donc je retire avant d'entamer des poursuites judiciaires (everything is false. So I withdraw before commencing legal proceedings)
• Encore faux !!!!! JAMAIS il avait été question de prison. (Encore faux !!!!! NEVER it had been about prison.)

It would appear that Claveyrolat was involved in an auto accident, severely injured four people. Was arrested for drinking and committed suicide after finding out how badly one individual was injured. Similar content is on fr:Thierry Claveyrolat One source from Irish Independent

• "encore faux" means "still false". You forgot to translate that part, so adding it for anyone who doesn't understand. Patient Zero^talk 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That is what Google translate returned. Thanks for the clarification. Jim1138 (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem Jim1138. Patient Zero^talk 09:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the info sourced to a french forum (not in any way reliable) and the quote. (Personally I am pretty sure including a quote as to a dead persons state of mind by a writer who admittedly had a big falling out with the subject is not really a good idea when the subject committed suicide). As it stands now its the basic facts. Should more/better sources be found, it can be expanded upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Admin eyes requested

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

---

Can an admin check this user's page and verify if this ok (I'm referring to my actions, as userpages cannot be made to look like articles, per WP:UP). He (I'm assuming ) is using his user page to host a Wikipedia article. I did leave him a note on his talk page about his user page, and left the userpage as-is as he appears to be fairly new. I'm requesting that his user page by double checked , just in case this article has been created before and I'm unaware of it. Thanks KoshVorlon} 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: You're spot on - I've deleted the article and blocked the user as a promotional account (with promotional edits to boot). Thank you for explaining why you CSD'd their user page - even though they've violated username policy they're still a new editor, and your actions have reduced the bite this experience may have given them. Thank you for bringing it to our attention -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Urgent request

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

---

Major vandalism has taken place at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports Please restore page. 109.155.83.19 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring by Only in death at Grace VanderWaal

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

---

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You will know when I am belligerent. You are spamming youtube links into an article that already has 4 youtube links in the refs (including at least one to her official channel). WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is also very clear. Do not external link more than one official website when they are already linked through an official website. This is basic SEO refspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are spamming nothing. Unique content is unique content. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec)There's no consensus to keep those redundant youtube links. And saying stuff like "Go FOC yourself" doesn't serve your argument well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Go FOC yourself" – He's telling someone to Focus On Content, right? "Go focus yourself on content" – what's wrong with that? EEng 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad someone got that ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I got it immediately. It was a joke. Or at least a tiny sliver of one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

—ATS 🖖 talk 23:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Read only that, did you? Unfortunate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like it's you that needs to be topic-banned. You've been here a long time and should know better than to do the stuff you're doing on that page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Stunningly, horribly, tragically wrong. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when is a content dispute about external links a "tragedy"? And is not the case that you've been here for 10 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting how you missed the tragedy and got the joke ... —ATS 🖖 talk 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling a minor edit dispute a horrible tragedy is also a sliver of a joke. Don't give up the day job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

One, two, three strikes, you're out. The tragedy is the shoot-the-reporter shitfest that this has become. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

In short, the joke's on you. Boomerangs happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No—boomerangs return on their own. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops, I commented on this in the thread above at virtually the same time. Doug Weller talk 19:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Those links don't belong. Please don't edit war to restore them. --John (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I notice this complaint about edit warring from an editor who is currently sitting right at 3RR (and is less than 2 hours from violating it) due to their insistence upon reverting at least two other editors. I notice that this editor has reverted 6 changes to the article in the past week (and seems to have an unusually high number of reverts overall for someone not engaged in bot-assisted anti-vandalism). I notice that this user has used edit summaries like (rvv), ‎(rv vandal) and ‎ (rv 100% bullshit edit: 67% because the vids are there, taken directly from the channel; 33% for blatant misuse of SOAP and BLP to cover IDONTLIKEIT) in response to good-faith edits. I notice that this editor made certain unqualified statements about the article subject's official website and what links it contains that were quickly proven false.

Therefore, I draw the conclusion that there is, somwhere in the vicinity a a certain sub-equatorial type of throwing stick fluttering around, looking for a face to run into. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Your blinders are showing ... —ATS 🖖 talk 20:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

When one man calls you a dog, ignore him. But when three (or more [56] [57] [58] [59]) men call you a dog, check yourself for fleas. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hilarious that it applies only here, not to the genesis of this whole thing. Your blinders have taken you over. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review the first rule of holes. While it's not an actual Wikipedia policy, it might help forestall an escalation of this problem. I understand that this advice might be frustrating and unwelcome, but these additional links really are not unique content and really do fall afoul of our policies for external links. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Because of recent, and likely fluid, changes to the subject's official presence, this point I have already conceded—and if I wasn't clear before, let me be so: I'm conceding this point. The issue is the behavior as noted above, to which others have been all too happy to apply a boomerang effect. If this is how we investigate things here, the project is fucked. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Only in Death, please stop edit warring. These links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. The subject is notable mainly for three things: (1) her appearance on AGT; (2) her YouTube videos; and (3) her new EP. Only in death keeps trying to delete three ELs that are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first links to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second links to the "videos" page of her YouTube channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). It is also suspicious that this person began edit-warring in support of Ronz on the same day that this TBAN request was made. Their edit summaries have some of the same tics of grammar/usage. Is Only in death a sockpuppet of Ronz? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:ELNO, WP:ELOFFICIAL or WP:ELMINOFFICIAL? I suggest you do. You have linked to her youtube channel, her other vevo channel - both of which are linked through her official website, and a youtube video which is *already linked to* in Ref 21. So thats 3 extra links that all fall foul of the above. None of it is 'unique' content and at this point my opinion this is link/ref spamming is increasing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Absent any material in the article relying upon those ELs as a source, they literally add nothing to the encyclopedia. Which means they don't belong. Full stop. While the talk page certainly looks like Ronz is editing against consensus, it's very clear that he's been editing within policy, and refraining from incivility and personal attacks. On the other hand, that talk page is chock full of personal attacks and incivility towards Ronz, and the consensus there is to violate WP:ELNO with no rationale given. I'm all for ignoring policy in favor of consensus when there's a good reason for it, but the reason here boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Which is a pretty crap reason if you ask me. If it was a good reason, I'd have written two-page book summaries and linked dozens of pieces of official and fan art to The Dresden Files. I think those articles are shamefully short. But I can't justify adding all that, so I don't. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

(Addendum) I'd also like to point out that ATS's responses to every bit of criticism in this thread has been a mild personal attack. I'm a little surprised no-ones pointed this out before now, but there it is. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No surprise, this ... —ATS 🖖 talk 21:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Whats more interesting is that considering the length of time both you and Ssilvers have been here, you both do not actually know what vandalism is at all. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Referring to [60] and [61]?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup - and the above accusations on this page. Now personally I'm quite happy to go to 3rr and stop when its blatantly 'We're going to spam youtube links' againt guidelines. Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes it all seems aimed at escalating this needlessly tense situation. They have what at the most amounts to a local consensus and questionably so. If they wish to IAR or they think the guidelines and/or policies do not apply in this situation they should have no issue justifying it on the articles talk page and seeking a consensus thru RFC or related process. And if they wish to continue here they should simply be banned. It will allow them time to cool down a depersonalize this.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Frankly given the above responses which show they have absolutely no ability to read and understand clear English, I guess its not surprising they also do not know the difference between vandalism and removing unencylopedic content. Also ATS, this is how you know I am belligerent - I stop actually trying to explain things to you. And that's all that need be said about that. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Belligerent misapplication of EL* in violation of consensus at article talk. There is no "spamming". I'd go back to the comment that was a response to. But this tit for tat bores me. Good day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Pardon my French but this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. This has been going on since October. It's time to stop. What I would suggest is that all of you external link warriors open an RFC and get a consensus. After the rfc closes go to WP:ANRFC and seek an official close from a neutral third party. In the event that they can not seek a consensus thru help from the greater wikipedia community ban each one of them. Ronz, ATS, and Ssilver for edit warring. This is a content dispute. Move it along.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

... this is all pure grade A USDA choice bullshit. That much is certain. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your actions just as specifically as Ronz. I can't note that Ronz is a edit warrior without noting that you are as well. I can't see banning Ronz without banning you and I can't see entertaining your behavior when it only seems aimed at further escalating a needlessly tense situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you say so. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

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

There is a consensus at Grace Vanderwaal on every issue. Only Ronz disagreed with the consensus No further dispute resolution is warranted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

84.208.144.64 and Kend94

Yesterday, 84.208.144.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added copyvio material to Moroccans in Belgium yesterday. I was just about to issue a warning on their talk page, when I saw the previous warnings about edit warring and adding incorrect information to articles that seemed familiar to me. They are familiar because yesterday, I warned Kend94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about adding unsourced information to some of the same articles that the IP has edited, and today, Kend94 was warned by Diannaa about adding copyvio material to Syrians in the United Kingdom yesterday. I suspect that these editors are the same person. Should I start an SPI, or can this be dealt with here on an individual basis for each account? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Kend94 has just added the same unsourced population estimate to Moroccans in Belgium that the IP added yesterday, and which I reverted. Looking at the history of that article, it seems certain that they are the same person. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a user editing as fixed IP when logged out and/or logging out to attempt to disassociate edits from the account. AGF I will warn them against the practice and IPSOCK the IP. SPI not necessary. Do you believe the combined behavior warrants more than just warnings for improperly sourced info, on the behavioral front other than identity? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that under WP:IPSOCK this is not necessarily policy violating if done accidentally or mistake (or even lazyness). Attempting to evade other policies such as 3RR, Edit Warring, making it look like more people support a position by posting via separate identities, etc. via IPSOCK is then a violation. I don't see clear evidence of those at this time but don't rule it out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Georgewilliamherbert. I don't think the user is deliberately editing logged in and out - I think it's just carelessness on their part. I do think that if all of the warnings issued to the IP address had been issued to the account, then the user would have been blocked by now. We have several ignored warnings about adding unsourced content, plus two copyright violations. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the history but I take it for a user who's being slow to understand WP policies, not one fundamentally trying to break things. That said, another admin may see it in a different light and want to do something on review, which I would not object to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You might be right, Georgewilliamherbert. It's just that I see a lot of final warnings at User talk:Kend94. Anyway, the user should now be aware of the issue, and has no more excuses for adding unsourced statistics or copyright material. I'm happy with that as an outcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Editor making hoax articles and additions about an actress

Hongseol1298 originally created an article about Baek Shin Ji, an actress that does not exist. She was claimed to star in multiple TV shows, but all of them were in 2018 or later, and google turned up nothing. This user has made many socks, to put this false information into multiple articles. So far, here are the socks (some found by Chrissymad):

• Hongseol98
• 112.215.151.142
• 112.215.170.206
• 112.215.45.18
• 112.215.170.128
• 112.215.200.123
• 112.215.151.24
• 112.215.201.192
• 112.215.152.228

Can admins keep an eye out for edits relating to Korean actresses that don't exist? Thanks. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Note: Hongseol1298 blocked indef by Widr -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I had to read that twice. Keeping an eye out for edits about non-existent actresses is necessary. However, keeping an eye out for non-existent actresses sounds like a sign of mental disorder. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Added a couple, will update with more shortly. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

From the deleted contribs, here's a couple more:

• 112.215.171.89
• 112.215.152.91

-- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Range Information

Here is the relevant IP Range information for interested administrators --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorted 10 IPv4 addresses:

112.215.45.18

112.215.151.24

112.215.151.142

112.215.152.91

112.215.152.228

112.215.170.128

112.215.170.206

112.215.171.89

112.215.200.123

112.215.201.192

Total affected	Affected addresses	Given addresses	Range	Contribs
64K	65536	10	112.215.0.0/16	contribs
32K	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	32768	9	112.215.128.0/17	contribs
17K	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	16384	7	112.215.128.0/18	contribs
	512	2	112.215.200.0/23	contribs
4611	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	4096	4	112.215.144.0/20	contribs
	512	3	112.215.170.0/23	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs
644	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	256	2	112.215.151.0/24	contribs
	256	2	112.215.152.0/24	contribs
	128	2	112.215.170.128/25	contribs
	1	1	112.215.171.89	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs
10	1	1	112.215.45.18	contribs
	1	1	112.215.151.24	contribs
	1	1	112.215.151.142	contribs
	1	1	112.215.152.91	contribs
	1	1	112.215.152.228	contribs
	1	1	112.215.170.128	contribs
	1	1	112.215.170.206	contribs
	1	1	112.215.171.89	contribs
	1	1	112.215.200.123	contribs
	1	1	112.215.201.192	contribs

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see there doesn't appear to be an IP range that would be blockable for this particular vandal. I'm going to ping KrakatoaKatie, DeltaQuad to take a second look since they are more familiar with ranges but here is the info regardless. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't block any range there without hitting a crap ton of collateral. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Way too much there to rangeblock. Katie^talk 21:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for the edit filter to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/822. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Activating a bot

We need an admin to activate a bot to revert a whole load of edits. Explanation here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#References_to_LinuxInsider_and_ECT_network_websites_removed_by_KnowledgeBattle. Please, can any one help. --Aspro (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done manually. It really wasn't that many edits, and many of them had already been reverted. Bradv 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Cortisol Talk page

Could an admin please take a look at the section "Psycho efects." on the Cortisol Talk page. There is some very unusual editing going on there. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Also see this edit from the same user - WikipediaUserBR. And similar stuff from 2-3 other editors on that page. 'Unusual' is an understatement! Ravensfire (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the two examples listed as being complete incoherent rants, and I've given WikipediaUserBR a warning for this in the idea of good faith. If they keep it up, I'm thinking a block for WP:NOTHERE may be needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

e/c The problem at the Cortisol Talk page has been solved thanks to user:RickinBaltimore. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Large number of trivial edits by IP user

Over a period of months 76.21.37.205 (talk) has been making a large number of trivial edits, mainly in the form of removing whitespace between sentence which has not visual affect on the articles.[62][63][64][65][66] They have also been going around removing leading zeros without gaining a consensus.[67][68][69] While some may consider this a constructive edit, there is nothing on MOS:NUM that prohibit leading zeros and {{Episode list}} documentation allows for leading zeros. The editor has been informed by Cyberpower678 [70] and myself[71] to stop these trivial edits, however, the editor has completely ignored these comments. —Farix (t | c) 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I put a 1 week block on the IP to hopefully get his attention. I have no problem with with any admin lifting this if the IP user can actually be made to understand he has to talk to other editors when they challenge him, instead of just continuing on with the questionable edits. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of content from Carol and List of accolades received by Carol (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.

---

I am requesting assessment from administrators regarding how the guidelines in MOS:FILM for *Critical response* and for *Accolades* are being applied in above-referenced articles.

On 11 January 2017, User:Tenebrae removed content from the *Critical response* section of Carol regarding the film being one of the top 100 films of 2015 and appearing in over 130 critics' Top Ten lists. Although MOS:FILM guideline for the *Accolades* section states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears", the same is not included in the guideline for the *Critical response* section.

His summary for deletion of critical response content: "WP:FILM articles do not do top-10 lists ... or top-20 or top-100. This flouting of WP:FILMMOS needs to stop or it's going to end up in an ANI".

The "Accolades" section and the "Critical response" section of a film article are not one and the same, but User:Tenebrae is dead-set on removing the mere mention of "top ten lists" from film articles -- even if such content is relevant to the section that exists specifically to provide information about response by critics.

Before this latest deletion of content by User:Tenebrae, I made two formal requests for neutral opinion regarding:

• 1. his removal of content from Talk:List of accolades received by Carol (film).
• 2. his removal of the sentence "It was named one of the best films of 2015 by numerous critics and publications, appearing in over 130 Top Ten lists." from the narrative (i.e. prose) of List of accolades received by Carol (film). [His argument for deleting this sentence: "The guideline states: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." <<->> My argument for keeping the sentence: "Information in narrative regarding a film being included in "top-ten" lists is not the same as adding a list of "top-ten" in the accolades."]

And while MOS:FILM guidelines instruct editors to seek consensus, User:Tenebrae did not do so before deleting long-established content from the articles.

I strongly believe that the latest deletion from the Carol article by User:Tenebrae was reckless and disruptive. How the MOS:FILM guidelines for *Critical response* and for *Accolades* are being interpreted merits a definitive response from administrators.

Thank you for your time and attention. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, Pyxis Solitary, we don't really handle content issues and content disputes here on AN/I. This is a question which would be ideal to ask at WT:FILM. I suggest posting it there. You may end up wanting to create an WP:RFC on the question, on the talk page of the article, but I would post your question at the WikiProject first. If a film has been on numerous top 10 lists of major notable venues, there is certainly cause to mention that in the prose part of the Reception section of the article on the film, and in the prose part of the List article. But if a film was only on the top ten list of a couple of venues, and they were not particularly notable venues, it wouldn't be noteworthy enough to mention. Softlavender (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Here is a comparable section on The Departed: The_Departed#Top_ten_lists. And here is one possible source for Carol if you haven't found it already: [72]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Here is a comparable section on The Departed: The_Departed#Top_ten_lists." Oh, lord. God help The Departed now that User:Tenebrae has found out that it contains a top-ten list.

Thank you for your response. I will follow up on your advice to ask at WT:FILM. And although there has been no response (yet) to my request for neutral input re deletion of content from the Talk page of List of accolades received by Carol (film), I will make an additional request about it and about the recent deletion of content from the *Critical response* section of the main article in WP:RFC.

Again ... thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: I slightly re-formatted the above user's comment to make it clear that the quotation was a quotation. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A third opinion was requested a few days ago, and I responded as a neutral, uninvolved editor after carefully reviewing the editing history and the discussion. Pyxis Solitary did not like my response, dismissing with a personal attack about a presupposed lack of expertise on my part. To say that "there has been no response" is a mischaracterization of the situation. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To say that "there has been no response" is a mischaracterization of the situation.

Read what I wrote again: "there has been no response (yet) to my request for neutral input re deletion of content from the Talk page of List of accolades received by Carol (film)". Again: "content from the Talk page". The T-a-l-k page. This is the request for NPOV: Accolades on this page. This is the topic in the Talk page: Accolades on this page. Did you reply to this? No.

Try to keep apples separate from oranges, please. Your response to the Third opinion/Active disagreements request is not a response to the NPOV request re deletion of content from the Talk page. Your response in topic Gushy tone and other vios -- " I agree that inserting references to numerous top-10 lists is inappropriate and a violation of MOS:FILM " -- is not supported by what has been discussed in WT:FILM and what is found in MOS:FILM guidelines.

Is it that some people don't know the definition of a "list"? From Cambridge Dictionary:

• "a record of short pieces of information usually arranged one below the other so that they can be read easily or counted" .

In other words, there is a difference between adding a "list" to a film article and adding a prose about the existence of a list. Nothing in MOS:FILM excludes prose about a list.

(Your personal opinion about me, whatever it may be, is irrelevant. Please stick to the facts.) Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Has this template been deprecated ?

I'm not sure what this editor is doing, I asked on their talk but no response and continues to edit. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

not according to the template page or Category:Deprecated templates from January 2017 Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could it be a bot of some sort? Users only edits are inserting the media box with NAMM links and now replacing as external links with NAMM. After doing a bit of digging, looks like it's just plain ol' COI. This is the single edit that was not an insertion of NAMM into an article. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If you look at the user's talk page, someone told her that she shouldn't add those videos. It appears she is now removing all those videos from articles. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

In any case, seems like a single purpose account given what "they" said on the talk page I linked and all 1,173 of their edits are related to NAMM... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If the user gets blocked (which looks certain) please nuke their 'tribs. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a good faith attempt to add material to Wikipedia, and the user is now undoing their mistake. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I think there's a bigger issue in a total failure to communicate, this has apparently been going on since 2015 and they haven't communicated with any other editors since that single talk entry in March 2016. Sharing is nice but it seems a bit like spam to me. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hm, agreed that lack of communication is an issue. Sam Walton (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Allisonhargis left this explaination on my talk. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this thread can be closed and archived. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 15:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Ryulong ban evasion under Drewmutt and KenYokai

The following discussion is closed. 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 sockpuppet accounts of banned user Ryulong. Drewmutt was created 11 years ago (2006) with virtually no edits and only achieved automatic auto-confirmed status in 2016. Ken Yokai was created 6 years ago (2011). Both are reverting a misspelling of "Buddyroid" to "Buddyloid" and issuing vandal warnings for correcting the spelling, and making edits to other Power Rangers-related topics which has been a long-time Rylong MO here and on other wikis before and even after he was banned. Evidence:

• DrewMutt logs

• KenYokai logs

--206.255.40.218 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You're going to need a much stronger case to hypothetically prove they're Ryulong. Your examples above are hardly telltale signs that would point to him and him alone. Looking into his user page and comments, DrewMutt in particular does not really resemble Ryulong. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Could be meatpuppets too since he had a history of asking others to edit for him under the ban, a simple IP check for proxies a common IP among these accounts might be in order, either way they continue to falsely revert edits as 'vandalism' for correcting a more common spelling so they're still acting in a disruptive manner on those articles.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, "could be", but you're still describing a lot of people. You need way more proof to create a convincing case here. You haven't even provided links to where they're supposedly reverting the same misspelling. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

All yours, boss. Two separate accounts, undoing the same spelling fix on two separate articles, all within about 15 minutes of each other. It's blatantly obvious. Not to mention using Huggle and Twinkle to issue vandalism reverts over edits he simply 'dislikes' for whatever reason:

• Drewmutt
• KenYokai

--206.255.40.218 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any proof of identification. These concerns of yours, should be taken to the proper place. BTW - I'm more curious about your possible past identity, 206.255.40.28? GoodDay (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What counts as proof then Holmes? I believe he's been banned on a few Wikias for warring over the same edits, would linking to that count as proof?--206.255.40.218 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No, please keep the evidence to what happens on Wikipedia. That's what we have jurisdiction over. It's not that this example by itself is bad, its just not nearly conclusive enough. You need to accumulate way more examples, where you can show a link where Ryulong made an exact same comment/change, and how the person you're accusing made the same sort of edit. Think of it more like a court case. Your case, so far, is about the equivalent of "Well, the murderer is confirmed to a resident of New York City, and the suspect is a resident of New York City. I rest my case!" Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. Beyond the extremely weak case, it looks like the whole "buddyloid"/"buddyroid" spelling is highly debated judging by this talk page, making it not particularly unlikely of a scenario that someone besides Ryulong were to oppose one over another. Also, with Japanese to English translations, there are often discrepancies with R and L sounds. This all sounds more like "typical Wikipedia arguments" over "confirmed case of sockpuppetry". Sergecross73 msg me 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

...sure. It'd honestly take less time to just do an IP check than spend as much time trying to 'debunk' this as you did, just saying.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention two out of the 5 or so comments in that 'debated thread' were by Ryulong himself.--206.255.40.218 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, this "proof" of yours is a common argument in Japanese/English media subjects. There's a Japanese character in a game named "Crem" but it could also be interpreted/changed to "Clem". Some prefer "Crem" the more literal choice, while others find the more natural sounding "Clem", which is also an actual English name. There's tons of people on either side of an argument, so it's not exactly a tell-tale sign for someone to just happen to fall on the same side of Ryu-Long. Sergecross73 msg me 17:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Another note - a simple look at Ken Yokai's talk page shows that Ken Yokai and Ryulong argued extensively with each other as early on as 2011. I highly doubt he had some sort of masterplan that involved staging years of arguments with his sock-puppet account prior to getting site banned to make it look like they're not the same person. This report lacks evidence and common sense at this point. I think its time for someone to close this discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

100.43.251.2's disruptive edits on the Eve Russell 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.

---

The user 100.43.251.2 is making repeated disruptive edits to the Eve Russell by changing the name Eve Russell to Eve Crane. Some examples of his edits can be found here: 1 and 2. This user has done the same thing to the page in the past and has been blocked before for similar behavior on other pages. I was wondering if there was a way to prevent this from continuing in the future (mostly likely by putting another block on the user). Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Deletion of a derogatory but non sensitive edit summary

Please delete this edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_Lee&oldid=760046550 . Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, please see WP:CRD. Revdel is appropriate for grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material; not for "ordinary" incivility, which this certainly is. No admin action required. TimothyJosephWood 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I withdraw my request. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption

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

---

Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk · contribs) has/is

• edit-warring
• re-created speedied article Allison Wilke
• removing the speedy template therefrom
• creating nonsense redirects
• creating nonsense categories

The editor has previously been blocked for this behavior.

Thank you. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and blocked the editor for 1 week for a combination of repeatedly removing the speedy deletion tag despite being warned not to and the above disruptive behaviour. If this continues after the week block has elapsed then an indef block should be sought -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Nalbert123

The following discussion is closed. 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 seem to have picked up a bit of a stalker. Several talk page posts[73][74][75](warning) and an email.[76][77][78]

To be clear, I have no objection to Nalbert123 vigorously promoting pseudoscience in his talk page comments, but I do object to the personal attacks such as:

• "You are employed by AT&T and Verizon to spread lies"
• "Stop corrupting Wikipedia with your industry lies and pseudoscience"
• "You have been trouted for: spamming Wikipedia with abominable fallacies"
• "Maybe all the toxic chemicals from the highway in your back yard (or living too close to some cell towers) is destabilizing you a bit too much"
• "BSing the public is not very nice you swine"
• "I have caught you repeatedly vandalizing Wikipedia"
• "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia"

Could an administrator please issue an appropriate warning? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, I find it a bit creepy that he looked up my home address on Google maps and made note of the freeway running behind my house. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Blocked 1 week for the personal attacks and the harassment - regardless of their views (and frankly regardless of their generally disruptive behaviour) the harassment and tying together of on and off -wiki details about yourself is unacceptable. Perhaps another admin will block for longer (in which case they do not need to notify me) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've indeffed the user. You beat me to the punch Samtar, I was going for an indef when you had already blocked them. That was as blatant of WP:OUTING as I can think of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I was about to block him, but Samtar beat me to it. Honestly, he was friendlier than me with a 1-week block. Doxxing you, however vaguely, is across the line and I would have sent him packing indefinitely. Wikipedia has no use for people who use doxxing as a means of harassing and silencing people who disagree with them. --Jayron32 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron32: You're entirely right - I was being lenient and hoping some good could come out of this. Please feel free to up to indef -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent deletion on Leon Bolier 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 Karst keeps preferentially deleting the discography content on the said page. 99.135.170.149 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

First off, this is a content dispute, and needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, in fact there is no discussion there on this at all. Secondly, Karst is correct, in that Wikipedia is not a repository, and that there aren't any sources on these albums or singles. Finally, you did not notify Karst as it states above, and I will do so now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Thanks. The page is now under a seven day PP. I would encourage the anon IP to discuss this on the Talk page. Karst (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I just saw that, and that the article is now up for AfD. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I see. Not going to involve myself with the AfD until the ANI has been closed. Karst (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

84.208.144.64 and Kend94 (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 recently reported 84.208.144.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/Kend94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for continued addition of unsourced statistics and copyright material despite several warnings (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#84.208.144.64 and Kend94). Unfortunately this behaviour is continuing, with the account creating articles with citation needed tags against population estimates and the IP making this edit, adding copyright material from this source. I think the time has come for action to stop this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Kend94 is now re-adding unsourced material having been reverted. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, copy-pasting material from Iraqis in the Netherlands into Syrians in the Netherlands, for some reason. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The last ANI thread did not seem to catch their attention. Let's see if a 48 hour block will. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NeilN - let's hope so. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Tegbo

• Tegbo (talk · contribs · count)

he is ja:LTA:DARU (d:Special:CentralAuth/Tegbo). he is at Julius Indongo, don't read or can't understand the WP:BLP and WP:BLPREMOVE. I think so need the global blocking now.--Nami-ja (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Nami-ja: Global blocking is a pretty extreme solution, unless there is evidence that he is editing disruptively on English Wikipedia as well. 日本語わかりますから私のtalk pageにご投稿いただければ英語版でも同じ投稿ブロックの対象となればいいかどうか見てみます。 (If you can present the evidence that he has edited disruptively on English Wikipedia yourself, please do so. I'm just assuming you'd be more comfortable writing in Japanese, and if so you can tell me what's up on ja.wiki -- I don't edit there often -- and I can help you if I think the problem does merit action on en.wiki as well.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Still looking into this, but it appears the account was blocked on Japanese Wikipedia as a sock of ダルメーター (talk · contribs), who has also (not many times) edited English Wikipedia and is not blocked, nor has he declared his use of an alternate account. It's an LTA case on Japanese Wikipedia, with apparently multiple copyright violations (according to the OP's message on my talk page DARU is unable to understand our copyright policies). While obviously ja.wiki violations are not actionable here, the account is a confirmed sock and neither his main account nor his sock are currently blocked on English Wikipedia (which means it's not teachnically block evasion), and if this really is a CIR failure to understand copyright policies on ja.wiki, then the same problem is almost certain to recur here, if it hasn't already (more eyes would be appreciated). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

That said, most of the account's larger edits consist of adding tables of win-loss records to boxing BLPs. If any of this information is controversial or inacfurate, it may violate BLP (I have no idea, as I don't follow the sport) and it would be difficult to prove that these are copyvios since all they are is factual data. The undeclared sockpuppetry, and the fact that the currently-active account was originally created on a sister-project to evade a block, are potential problems though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that he seems to be ignoring this discussion, and has refused to confirm or deny that he is socking.[79] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Users Modernist and Ewulp keep reverting 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.

---

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

---

Both Modernist and Ewulp are reverting my edits without a proper discussion on the TP. They refuse to give arguments on the TP and even the 'Dispute resolution noticeboard' closed the issue because they refused to supply sources for the information they want in the article on Picasso. It would be nice if an admin could intervene and at least demand them to supply proper sources or leave my edits alone. Thank you in advance. C.Gesualdo (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a long ongoing discussion regarding this matter here:[80]. This editor does not like the fact that consensus for his changes are against him, by many experienced editors; he has consistently edit warred to get his way; even after having been warned and blocked [81]...Modernist (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am a mainly uninvolved editor in this situation (other than reverting C.Gesualdo's edits at Pablo Picasso). The main issue, and one in which C.Gesualdo has been warned about and has been blocked accordingly, is edit warring and refusing to wait for consensus on the talk page. A while back, I gave C.Gesualdo some advice on being patient. Simply put, C.Gesualdo believes his/her version of the text is the only correct version and that he/she can unilaterally change it without consensus. C.Gesualdo has repeatedly claimed that he can do whatever he wishes (WP:OWN) and refuses to abide by consensus building. Likewise, he is impatient with other editor's not responding within his time frame. I have not commented on the editing dispute per se as I am not able to devote too much time these days to Wikipedia. However, continued disruptive editing (that has resulted in a block) is not helpful and C.Gesualdo should be instructed on working for consensus. The edits in question are not controversial, nor do they involve BLP issues. They are an issue of interpretation and as such, there is no harm in leaving the article as is until consensus is reached on the talk page. freshacconci talk to me 17:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Note after closure I have blocked the editor for 2 weeks after he simply continued to edit-war against multiple editors on more than one article. Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Quick Simpleman

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Incident where User:Quick Simpleman made derogatory comments regarding my sexuality, for which I have mentioned in a category on my user page.

• [82]
• [83]

Please note that content dispute at On a Night Like This has been resolved. Thank you. TheKaphox T

Yes the issue at On a Night Like This has now been resolved so I am not entirely sure what more is wanted of me. Until I become better aware of what I am supposed to answer for, I will stay away from this project page. Thank you. Quick Simpleman (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The comment you made in the edit history of the 2nd highlighted Diff is unacceptable. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I was saying the same thing. [84], that edit summary is HIGHLY uncalled for. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Quick Simpleman: The incident is regarding the homophobic comments, cited in the diffs above. TheKaphox T 20:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I haven't repeated it and I have no intention to repeat it, but I did inform the petitioner that he was welcome to makes as many comments as he wanted towards me as a hetero editor. I won't mind, I won't complain. But if the petitioner feels offended, be sure I will not repeat such a comment. If anyting else is required of me, just say. Quick Simpleman (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason for any editor to be making comments about another editor's sexuality. Frankly you'll be lucky to get away with a warning for a seriously unacceptable comment like that. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick Simpleman, simply leave ANY editor's sexuality out of a discussion, be they gay, straight, what have you. It doesn't matter on editing the article, and can be seen as a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(EC) Can be seen as a personal attack? I'd say a vulgar, homophobic slur definitely constitutes a personal attack and deserves some level of a block. Capeo (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my pledge that I will not repeat such a remark again. If I am to be blocked, what am I looking at? Lifetime or just temporary? Quick Simpleman (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seriously not cool. Telling someone they're free to insult your sexuality (the sexuality of the vast majority, which has never faced any serious persecution throughout history) does NOT make it okay for you to insult the sexuality of someone whose sexuality has been persecuted throughout history and is still persecuted today. I absolutely hate the phrase "check your privilege" because it's so smarmy and dismissive and whiny but, in this case dude: Check your damn privilege. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVILITY I will be making no more personal comments. Quick Simpleman (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's rather odd that a brand-new editor is able to immediately quote the applicable policy, but never mind. Frankly, your 4th ever edit on Wikipedia was a homophobic slur - why should you have the right to continue editing? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If the user has come here with an agenda, then he won't be here long anyway. Meanwhile, he should read Breeder (slang) and learn of its history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You're asking how a new editor can be able to cite policy, the answer is that it was brought to my attention[85]. You ask why I should continue editing. I've said it is because I won't make any insulting remarks again. Anyhow. I am not editing (properly). I am watching this project page and awaiting an outcome before I resume article work. Quick Simpleman (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Fram/Sander.v.Ginkel follow-up

I know strictly speaking, this doesn't require an admin's attention, but I know a lot of people made comment on this discussion. For info, there's now this discussion to move things forward. I'll drop a note on Fram and Sander's talkpages too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock stupidity redacted, removed content here if anyone really feels the need to read it. ‑ Iridescent 19:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the results of the SvG discussion was that " a list of Sander's existing problematic BLP articles should be made for reference for interested parties to recreate properly. Once created, one (1) week's notice should be given in a public enough manner so that editors and interested Wikiprojects (Cycling and Olympics were mentioned by name) can "adopt" articles to either correct during that week or userfy for longer-term correction. After said week, corrected articles should be removed from the list and the remaining uncorrected BLP articles should be deleted. " Such a list now exists (since a few days) at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up/BLP 0. Quite a few wikiprojects have been alerted about the situation. @Avraham:, I guess all this counts as the public notification and in a week these articles can be deleted? Fram (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well yes and no. They will all be moved into draftspace with a 90 day timescale to check them. They'll either be a) moved back to mainspace if all OK or b) deleted. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Then you have six days left to move them to draftspace (the ones where anyone has indicated an actual interest to check them). In the three weeks or so since the original discussion was closed, very few articles have actually been corrected it seems (not even the ones where factual problems were already identified). Fram (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a bot request in operation to move them all. Hopefully approved soon. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editor 2.30.198.42 (and other IPs)

I made this report at WP:AIV but was advised to bring it here:

• 2.30.198.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This editor (under a variety of IPs) continually makes unsourced edits, usually with a ludicrous number of capital letters. He has been repeatedly warned, and was blocked at 2.30.210.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for example. He has continued with edits like these, and despite further warning he has continued with edits like these.

--David Biddulph (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Reuven Bar-On

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

---

RE: Registering a formal complaint regarding the repetitive malicious and libelous editing of the "Reuven Bar-On" Wikipedia article from November 2016 until the present: In February-March 2016, Wikipedia posted the “Reuven Bar-On” article which describes my contributions to psychology. From the middle of November 2016 until the present, an individual (REDACTED) has been vandalizing this article by randomly altering and deleting text together with supporting sources as well as personally attacking me in emails with vulgar, derogatory and libelous language, which demonstrates his malicious intent, for reasons that are totally unbeknown to me. The following are a few examples of Mr. Sheer’s unfounded, defamatory and libelous language on Wikipedia in describing my conceptual model and research: (1) “the Bar-On research is all bunk” and “the Bar-On Model is completely bogus, is not used in practice and not widely known” [11/22/2016]; (2) “his citations are bogus, his research is non-notable, and he is not mentioned anywhere as being an important or famous researcher” [11/23/2016]; and (3) “the Bar-On research stream is complete quackery” [11/26/2016]. The following statements demonstrate malicious intent based on the libelous content and uncouth nature of Mr. Sheer’s emails that were directly sent to me attacking my work and me personally: (1) “you are a f**king quack” and “your theories are quack” [11/23/2016]; (2) “you are NOT a doctor -- your Ph.D. is garbage -- your life’s work is garbage” [11/24/2016]; (3) “you have embarrassed an entire generation of psychologists and tried to boost your undeserved notoriety” [11/25/2016]; and (4) “you should write letters of apology to every journal you have published in… and then kill yourself” [12/21/2016]. Upon request, I will email you the email thread between us in its entirety from the 23rd of November to the 21st of December 2016, which was initiated by Mr. Sheer. I feel that my responses to him, throughout this communication, demonstrates (a) my repetitive but unsuccessful efforts to patiently provide him with additional information, explain more about my concept and research findings, the nature of research in emotional intelligence and psychological research in general as well as (b) my unsuccessful attempt to better understand the underlying reasons for his attacks on my model, research and me personally. On the 30th of November 2016, I posted a response to what Mr. Sheer posted wrote in the “talk” section on 26th of November. This will provide more information on the nature of this issue. It is important to note that almost all of the content originally appearing in this article was methodically supported by numerous verifiable references, most of which were peer-reviewed. Having had personal experience in editing over the past 18 years (editing two books and one peer-reviewed journal series as well as serving on the editorial team of four journals), it is important to convey that I sincerely welcome constructive editing that will enhance the informative value of the “Reuven Bar-On” article. In my opinion however, such editing should preferably be supported by peer-reviewed references rather than emotionally motivated. Moreover, I assume that the administrative team and editorial community at Wikipedia would agree with this basic approach and hopefully take action that would encourage constructive editing in order to increase the academic value of its articles and discourage destructive editing that reduces the value of posted articles as well as the reputation of this online encyclopedia. One approach to doing this would be to more carefully review what was changed, deleted and/or added as well as the justification for making these editorial alterations; and I would also expect that multiple attempts to destructively edit articles would be to block further attempts by the individuals involved. In addition to sending a “Without Prejudice” letter to Mr. Sheer on the 7th of January 2017 forewarning him of action to be taken by me, I have emailed formal complaints to: (1) Wikipedia’s Volunteer Response Team on the 8th of January 2017; and (2) Wikipedia’s volunteer group that focuses on vandalism on the 8th of January 2017. Today, a certified letter will be mailed to the Executive Director of Wikimedia. I am also consulting with an attorney in this regard. I apologize for the length of this message; however, I wanted to provide as much background information as possible in order to describe the issue at hand as well as its seriousness and potential damage to my professional reputation as well as the academic reputation of Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate receiving your response to this message as well as taking action to effectively deal with the specific issue at hand and to deal with similar future behavior directed to other articles. R.Bar-On (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have left a message at User talk:Paulsheer about this discussion. Bradv 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Outing a user AND a legal threat? Oh you will surely get your way... -Tarage (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well technically, it's only libelous if I made it public --- but you did that --- and it's only malicious if you suffered damage --- but you sent numerous emails indicating you enjoyed my berating emails. These misunderstandings indicates your ineptitude is not limited to matters of psychology studies.

Are you confusing me with someone else? Because I believe you don't know who you are talking to. --Tarage (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tarage, I believe they were referring to the OP. As for the OP, I have given them an indef block per WP:NLT, and for the outing that took place with giving a personal email address. At this point the OTRS should assist with this issue, and look into the claims that were made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's certainly some irony in the fact that the author of the above wall of text is the originator of something called the Emotional Quotient, designed to measure "emotional and social competence". EEng 14:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:216.54.129.25

The following discussion is closed. 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 216.54.129.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has repeatedly used the Pinkerton (album) talk page as a forum for his or her own opinions, despite being pointed to the WP:FORUM policy. I left a warning on the user's Talk page. The user has reverted the Talk page again with the charming message "Leave it alone or I shall find you and hurt you."[86] Popcornduff (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

see? now I'm out to find you, wikiturd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.129.25 (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Block the user, the above is unacceptable and just looks like someone wanting martyrdom, why disappoint them?Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've obliged the IP with a 48 hour block (as it's a dynamic IP). I'm certain they'll be back when the IP rotates, so Popcornduff please feel free report them again to ANI (and ping me directly) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Pretty obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate SPI blocks

The following discussion is closed. 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:Smile228 and User:Wassanee were blocked for sockpuppetry, but no wrongdoing had taken place. Smile228's edits take place after Wassanee's ceased, and it's possible that they may have simply lost access to the older account. Even if this weren't the case, good faith should have been assumed and the offenders warned instead of outright blocked, as these are clearly not vandalism or block-evading accounts. I'm posting this independently of the blocked users. (Previously posted as an unblock request, but declined for not being made by blocked user.) --Paul_012 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to comment on the general lack of AGF in SPI blocks. Too often, as in this case, constructively editing accounts are indef-blocked after SPIs even when it's wholly possible that their practice was due to ignorance of the rules rather than malicious intent. Unfamiliar with the appeals process, they create a new account and end up being blocked again for block evasion. Who knows how many potential editors Wikipedia has lost this way? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

213.74.186.109 / Human like you

User 213.74.186.109 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) should be blocked for persistent personal attacks.

Latest personal attack: "harasser copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" [87]. "harasser" is a personal attack (and the statement "copied from somewhere else & an unrelated warning" is a lie - these were earlier warnings on his talk page [88]).

Background: This user repeatedly violated wikipedia rules, in particular this user seems to be engaged in long term POV pushing and soapboxing and repeatedly made personal attacks. Therefore I left warnings on his talk page. This user contacted other users and acted as if the warnings were not justified and he was a victim. Therefore I restored the warnings for discussion with an explanation why I thought they were justified [89].

User 213.74.186.109 has a history of personal attacks: "sockpuppet" [90], "vandalism by delusional user" [91], "supporters of anarchy and terror" [92], unjustified accusations of "vandalism" [93], "Where did this sock puppet come from? Are you good at yakking too?" [94], "mouthpiece of a terrorist" [95], "An evil intention hides behind your "civil" facade" [96]).

This user has been warned repeatedly for personal attacks: [97], [98], [99], in particular most recently [100] by user User:Editor abcdef.

Looking at the edit history it is very clear that since September 2016 this IP is operated by the same user (same topics, same edit pattern). 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It is particularly problematic that he constantly direct personal attacks against other users on talk pages and not a single action can be taken yet since he doesn't like people adding stuff to his talk pages. Any charges against the IP should instead be redirected to user:Human like you since for the past 2 days the latter is the account he uses to edit. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User 213.74.186.109 just confirmed [101] that 213.74.186.109 and 'Human like you' are the same user. It seems that as user Human like you (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) he is playing the same game again. The same pattern of POV pushing, soapboxing [102], and again acting as victim when someone notices this behaviour [103]. In particular, this user continues to make personal attacks over and over again [104],[105],[106], most recently he got warned [107] by user User:EricEnfermero. 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse this complaint. I see an ongoing pattern of disruptive edits, including POV pushing, false allegations in edit summaries, and failure to respond to concerns raised on their talk page (except to namecall). I do also hear an obvious WP:QUACK. What I don't know is whether there's a larger context or longer history in play. IPs similar to the IP of the above complainant have engaged in some talk page back-and-forth with User:Human like you/the problem IP (e.g., see recent history at Talk:The New York Times, and have now posted to my talk page; they clearly know their way around the wiki. Regardless of that, I think a block of Human like you for persistent disruption is probably warranted at this time—failing that, a stern warning with an admin or two keeping an eye on things. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This user also posted at the Teahouse asking "how to get rid of a stalker". White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I also endorse this complaint. I have witnessed (and sometimes been targeted by) the disruptive POV editing and aggressive poisoning of talk page discussions by the reported User 213.74.186.109 (talk) aka Human like you (talk) over several months and articles, in particular Syrian Democratic Forces and Rojava (see talk pages and talk page archives of the articles). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

From a non-involved party, I can see several problematic issues occurring here on both sides. Starting with 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). IMO, this discussion that 2003:77 IP is referring to was closed way too hastily. Obviously the other IP should not have re-opened that discussion, but that is honestly no grounds for a talkpage warning. Instead of constantly posting template warnings on the other IP's talkpage, you need to try to tell them specifically what the problem is, and how they should go about resolving it. Just posting templates on their talkpage without any context is not appropriate, especially because their edits are not obvious vandalism.

@Aurato:: 1) Concerning IP 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 you mentioned above: This was my first encounter with this user. First I thought it was vandalism (in the sense of making an article deliberately worse), because at that point I thought that nobody could reasonably believe what he added. However, now I think that he is so much influenced by Turkish propaganda that he actually believes it.

2) The reason for the talkpage warning was not only the reopening of the closed discussion but also the continued WP:SOAPBOXING.

3) This and all other issues have been explained to this user again and again by several users including me through talk page warnings, sometimes with further explanations, and edit summaries. But as IP 213.74.186.109 this user ignored these warnings, repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page and went on with the same problematic edit pattern. Because of these "cleanings" it is difficult to figure out what happend on this talk page. 84.187.146.101 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Now moving on to 213.74.186.109 / Human like you. Aside from the personal attacks, harassment, and POV pushing, the fact that the user behind 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), obviously created Human like you (talk · contribs) in order to avoid scrutiny is very inappropriate. (Note: There is a difference between creating an account because you want to become a registered user, and creating an account to try to avoid being scrutinized). Also, the IP in question has had a 48 hour block for edit warring, which was (probably) due to the constant POV pushing. From what I can tell, their behavior has not improved much, if at all in regards to the reasons for that block. I'm not an admin, and I don't know whether or not a block should be put in place; that is up for an admin to decide. Anyhow, 2003:77 and 213.74.186.109 / Human like you, you two are in the middle of a content dispute. Instead of harassing each other on the article's talkpages, please work this out in a respectful manner. And 213.74.186.109, you really need to stop using inappropriate edit summaries. It does nobody any good at all, and you're only putting more gasoline into the fire...

In order for any legitimate administrative action to occur (or not, if they decide that there is no action needed), I will be pinging EdJohnston to help sort out this situation, because it seems like he has been involved with both of the editors here, and EdJohnston was the admin that placed the 48 hour block back in December. Aurato (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As yet there is no reason to think the subject of this complaint is avoiding scrutiny. The IP, 213.74.186.109, has stated on his user talk that he created a registered account as User:Human like you. Since 1 January his registered account is the only one who has made any article edits. I suggest that the filer of this report, 2003:77:4F1D:B929:CC3B:3956:435B:2E58 (talk · contribs), should also create an account if they think they expect to remain active in complex disputes like the Syrian Civil War and want to get much sympathy from admins. Making an ANI complaint from a single-use IP could be viewed as another way of avoiding scrutiny for your edits. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Instead, the IP chooses to file a multi-faceted report at WP:ANEW. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

1) I didn't intent to allege in my report that it was a case of WP:Sock puppetry, but I think it is important that these are not mistakes of a beginner but continuation of long term problematic behaviour.

2) At the moment I'm the IP 2003:77:... (and in rare cases 84.187... ) and as such involved in discussions, e.g. at Talk:Rojava. Also, I don't want one of my first registered user edits to be filing an edit warring report. In the longer term, I hope at some point there will be a good moment to take a WP:WIKIBREAK, and maybe, afterwards, I will come back as registered user (so that the registered user edits do not mess up with the IP edits). In the meantime, I hope other users consider Wikipedia:IPs are human too. 84.187.146.101 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User Human like you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) still tries to add soapboxing and the personal attacks he initially made as 213.74.186.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Talk:The New York Times (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs), though this thread had been closed by another user on Dec 27. 2003:77:4F2E:5887:D61:7010:CD0E:EB22 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop censoring comments on the talk page please. Another MAC address keeps reverting my comments from appearing and closing the thread. For all I know it might have been you. Follow the discussion. -Human like you (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The thread was first closed by Rivertorch, with the comment "The article is not a soapbox; the talk page is not a forum. There are lots of other places on the Internet to talk about this stuff." I'd suggest you start a new thread, and avoid soapboxing. And knock off the hostility towards IP editors. 80.229.60.197 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

User:178.251.181.246

This user keeps removing the same person from the Southend page [108] with no explanation. I have asked them to not removee this person (notable enough to have their own wiki entry Sam Duckworth more then once [[109]] without explaining why he should not be in this article they have not even bothered to reply.

I have no idea what the issue is, as (as I said) the user refuses to explain it. I thus have to assume it is just some kind of petty vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a couple of days seeing as a couple of IPs have done this - we'll see if they continue after your notes to them. If they do continue after the page protection lapses then we'll look at further action -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP has also twice three times changed the heading 'Legal history' to 'Minor Indiscretions' (their cap 'I') at Nile Ranger. It has been reverted both by myself, another editor and an Admin. IP editor has been warned (level 3) twice for this disruption alone. Eagleash (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

They have had a warning, lets leave it at that for now ans see what happens.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

:::I think it is fair to say he means it is a PA, and may not be that up on English (that is my take anyway).

Beatley and Cassianto

Cassianto (talk · contribs) appears to be WP:HOUNDING Beatley (talk · contribs), broadly reverting his/her constructive contributions across multiple articles:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]

There are more, just look at recent contribs. Add to that a seriously uncivil edit summary in response to @JamesBWatson: [114]. Note that this editor has been blocked more than 7 times for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL issues. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the report at AIV, I'm going to decline it, in lieu of the discussion here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe David Eppstein and Nikkimaria could offer their views with regards to Beatley? Cassianto^Talk 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While the "fuck off" edit summary obviously isn't cool, it looks like Beatley is wandering around Wikipedia unilaterally adding infoboxes to articles without discussion, which isn't explicitly forbidden but is certainly frowned upon, particularly once objections have been raised. It's standard practice on Wikipedia when one spots an editor doing something problematic to check their contributions to see if they've been causing the same problem elsewhere and fix them if so, and doesn't remotely constitute "hounding". ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Asking "Why is this infobox an improvement" is a poor rationale for reverting, unless the editor asking the question has WP:OWN issues. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Mlpearc, note User talk:Beatley/Archive 1#Templates (one of 47 posts on Beatley's talkpage of which by my count 40 are warnings). It's already been explained to him by multiple people why adding Wikidata templates without discussion is problematic unless the data in question has been verified (WP:INFOBOXREF states that information in an infobox without a citation has to be present in the article, and his infoboxes aren't complying with that), and why his edits are being reverted. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Iridescent Thanx for pointing that out. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to count warnings on Beatley's talkpage, please note that some (including valid BLP warnings) have been removed by Beatley, as is his right. Beatley seems to me to have a hair trigger for calling any disagreement with his edits "hounding"; one of the comments he removed was my explanation that, contrary to his accusations there, my reversions of his userboxes were not hounding, because I had only reverted changes that I had seen on my own watchlist. There's a bigger issue here, which is whether the "experimental" Wikidata-based infobox template that Beatley keeps adding should be used on Wikipedia at all; it doesn't meet our standards for reliable sourcing of BLPs, and many of Beatley's edits have had the effect of adding unsourced personal information (such as birthdays) to BLPs, when that information did not already appear in the text of the article and did not have a valid source even over on Wikidata. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Wikidata-based infoboxes are certainly less-than-ideal and shouldn't be added willy-nilly to pre-existing articles. However, I'm most concerned with the removal of infoboxes added by Beatley to articles he created himself, such as Dušan Cekiḱ and Elias Plavev. If the desire of an article creator to omit an infobox is reason enough to leave one out, shouldn't the opposite also be true? clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't delete them for the fun of it; have you actually seen my diffs below? Would you consider the boxes to be a help or hindrance? Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, Beatley has been adding pointless Infoboxes and I'm not the only one who has been challenging them about this. This user is adding them on an industrial scale and although well within their rights to do so, there has to be a level of common sense applied:

1. this
2. this
3. this
4. this
5. this
6. this
7. this
8. this
9. this
10. this
11. this
12. this

And these I've found at random! I apologise for loosing my cool by swearing, I really do, but being templated, reverted, and then hauled to two drama boards with no discussion at any of the talk pages really pisses me off. Not to mention JamesBWatson's failure to warn the other editor. JamesBWatson has come across as completeley biased, alerted by his friend, Toddst1. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment Let's try this week old discussion for starters and today's missives. We hope (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• article talk

"editing warring about infoboxes is childish don't you think? aren't you increasing the likelihood infoboxes will be everywhere with the battleground behavior? User:Beatley|Beatley (User talk:Beatley|talk) 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)"

• user talk

"well, defending the status quo is charming, but it might get you run over. i like the anti-infobox anti-wikidata anti-WMF ideology; it just does not have much future. do not mass revert my edits and we will get along fine. do it and you will have a fight. User:Beatley|Beatley (User talk:Beatley#top|talk) 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)"

• Note also that Beatley appears to be importing garbled machine translations using WP:CXT (example, example, both from today), which isn't explicitly forbidden (he's over the 500 edit threshold) but is certainly a bright red flag. Maybe he is fluent in English and understands the source language well enough to be sure that the meaning has not been scrambled or distorted (the requirement to use CXT) in French, Hungarian, Polish, Macedonian, Spanish, and German, but it seems unlikely. ‑ Iridescent 20:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Making mass changes is bound to get somebody's attention. Suggest Beatley stop with the infobox creations & get a consensus for those creations. Let's talk this out :) GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'd also like to note that the majority of infoboxes I have left in situ. I've reverted the ones I consider to be WP:DIB. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Is this the sort of battleground behaviour expected of "the victim" here? Cassianto^Talk 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• A threat?, surely not. This editor is a victim right? Cassianto^Talk 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Beatley's contributions have been problematic. He's received repeated requests to slow down with adding Wikidata templates and to amend/source added info as needed, but he appears to believe that it is not necessary to provide sources for infobox data even if that data appears nowhere in the article. Some of his template additions have been completely empty, while others have had information that obviously contradicts the article text (eg. differing years of birth, without sourcing) or is obviously wrong (eg. saying a person was born at "geographic location"). He's removed polite explanations of why he is incorrect with claims of "hounding", and has in several case restored his reverted edits without addressing reasons for reversion, particularly with regards to sourcing. While he may be acting in good faith, I don't think he has the necessary understanding needed to use Wikidata-enabled templates appropriately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Mass addition of infoboxes that only contain two lines is as disruptive as mass creation of redirects, if someone asks you to stop. And I say that as someone who generally prefers infoboxes, providing they perform a clear service of organizing and presenting sufficient pertinent information. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• I have neither the time nor the inclination to look into the entire thing, but found a few things worth mentioning. I found this edit by Beatley unacceptable and gave them an "only warning" for personal attacks on their talk page. Cassianto may be a lot of things, but he's no troll, and the astonishing amount of bad faith carried in that term is blockable; I hope they won't repeat it. In that same diff you can see Cassianto use the same word, but (wisely) couched in a different phrase; Cassianto, please tone it down. Your use is more acceptable/less blockable, but still not OK. I'm not warning on your talk page since you likely don't wish to see my beautiful name there, but I hope this suffice. As for the recent edits, this revert by Cassianto is very understandable, and Beatley better stop edit warring.

  All of this is much less important than the larger matter. There is some agreement here over the status of Wikidata and what we can and cannot do with it; Beatley would do well to listen to Nikkimaria's sage advice or they will run into a block--that's pretty much a guarantee--for disruption, edit warring, adding unverified information, or [feel free to supply a few more reasons]. Importing unverified information in this way makes the infobox more important than the article and is not an improvement. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Block Beatley should have been blocked already, for edit warring and trolling.[115][116][117] 50.0.136.56 (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Topic ban Beatley from Wikidata infoboxes, and infoboxes that provide nothing more than birth/birthplace/death, alma mater, occupation. I don't really know how Wikidata infoboxes arose, but I don't like them. I would support a ban on Wikidata infoboxes sitewide (i.e, not just Beatley), or make a it guideline that if they are removed they should not be replaced. Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Cmt If someone's this bullheaded, a nuanced restriction like that is asking for wp:gaming or rechannelling of technique to pursue the same agenda. If a topic ban comes down imho it's better to make it against any infobox editing broadly construed, or whatever the existing topic-banned pro- or anti- infobox zealots are under (I know there are some). 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• For the record, I have only reverted Beatley once and that was on Lady Rachel Workman MacRobert, an article I created, and the only article I have had any interaction with him/her on. Since then Beatley has accused me of article ownership; the same diff shows Beatley trying to intimidate(?) me with the Women in Green Project - and note that s/he did leave a comment on that Project talk page making the wildly inaccurate suggestion the article was close to GA based on his/her use of ORES. Eventually I left a brief comment on his/her talk page that ended up resulting in a rather bizarre "conversation" which included scathing comments from Beatley such as "why would i try to improve the article if you are camped on it? i'm surprised you have not admin locked it. go for it", "talk pages are a vast wasteland, given behavior such as yours", "ORES is more reliable than you", "do not mass revert my edits and we will get along fine. do it and you will have a fight" and "well, defending the status quo is charming, but it might get you run over". What is actually meant by "it might get you run over"? Perhaps someone could let me know if there are some kind of cultural differences I'm missing but where I come from getting run over means hitting someone or something with a car; so is s/he threatening me with physical harm? Yet despite this behaviour by Beatley, the OP in this thread, several admins and other commentators feel it is Cassianto's behaviour that is the problem? Really? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Meh, I assumed it was a metaphorical run over rather than a literal one. User reads like a non-native English speaker (or somewhere where it has diverged from the standard) so put it down to idiom. But from the above, most of the people here appear to agree that Beatley is in the wrong. I was expecting a lot more anti-Cassianto comments given it involves infoboxs (and Cassianto). I think its time for another RFC on the use of Wikidata however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So I'd be safe to go outside now? ;-) I wasn't really suggesting that I was actually frightened/terrified or worried about my safety, more that I was trying to highlight it could plausibly be read that way and, when coupled with the other poor behaviour, is far worse and way more disruptive than Cassianto occasionally muttering what some seem to consider a "naughty word" yet the OP is seeking sanctions against Cass, whose talk page was being littered with warnings. I even asked one of the admins who was warning Cass to look at Beatley's behaviour but that was ignored. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thats a polite suggestion. An administrator warning is 'Dont do this or you will receive administrative action'. If you are talking about the template, well anyone can use templates. JamesBWatson was just suggesting Cassianto might catch more flies with sugar than vinegar. Last of a long line of people to do that (self included)... Its not worked yet but we can hope :D FYI though, a good rule of thumb is, if someone hasnt replied promptly, they are probably busy. Wait 24 hours. I have lost count of the number of people who expect a response within the hour. This is a volunteer project. Its not an urgent issue. (some) People have lives. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• I am not happy with the editing of either editor. However, I have blocked Beatley for persistent disruptive editing, specifically for persistent reverts on a number of articles, which all put together amount, as I see it, to parts of one big edit war in the circumstances. The block is just for 12 hours, as a warning really. I shall leave it for others to decide if any more actions are needed, for either or both of the editors in question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note I have been bold and removed the most recent post by Marvellous Spider-Man. Rough as this thread was yesterday, everyone who has posted in it today has in some way tried to resolve or diffuse the issue. Remarks such as that do neither. As my edit-summary says, it was neither helpful nor necessary. And on the subject of edit-summaries, if snide snarks do have to be made, could an honest edit-summary at least be left? The last thing that was, was a 'suggestion.' Thanks all, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. MarvellousSpiderMan, Please read WP:SARCASM - it's a great humorous essay and gives excellent advice that should always be followed to the letter. Actual some content since I posted; So we're clear, my "sarcasm" post, is probably no more content-worthy then your own was. ANI is a forum for serious discussion not swipes at fellow editors. If you're going to comment, and you are allowed to do so, please make sure you have something worthwhile saying that isn't just an attack at someone else. This is not the first time you've been asked you to drop it today either for that matter. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback?

Beatley is currently was blocked (now expired) by JamesBWatson, and hasn't edited since the block. Is it appropriate to roll back his/her disputed infobox additions? There are quite a lot of them. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC) ((updated)

Unless we are going to get rid of the automated Wikidata infoboxes entirely, I don't think so. Some (the disputed ones) are unhelpful, but many appear harmless or constructive. And I say this after having gone through a sample of a few hundred of the articles that use the box (many added by other editors than Beatley) and getting rid of the ones that I thought were detrimental — these were definitely only the minority of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimiwriter

The user Jimiwriter has declared that they are a paid editor editing on behalf of another user, Akinpelu1990, who was blocked for promotional editing. The page they created, Jeffrey Phillips (lawyer), was marked for speedy deletion as being created by a blocked user. If someone is a paid representative of a blocked user(who I presume paid the person after being blocked since they couldn't edit), should they be blocked as well? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I was originally unaware of this thread, but have deleted the article in question. I'm not sure about blocking the user (I'm torn between considering if they are a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet) so I've err'd on the side of good faith and given them a final warning for using Wikipedia for promotion/advertising. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if another admin popped along and blocked them for being an advertising-only account -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 12:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe they will get blocked for promotional editing etc. but (disclosed) paid editing in itself is not grounds for blocking under policy, and AFAIK the employer's identity does not change anything to that. I can imagine a scenario where User:Boss of BigCorp tries to write an article, gets blocked and speedy-deleted, realizes their approach may not be ideal and then asks User:Boss's underling who knows internet communities better to do the work. I do not see anything more reprehensible than usual paid editing.

One might argue though that "on the behalf of Akinpelu1990" is not a correct disclosure for the purposes of the ToU. Maybe the real name is needed. IANAL, but the only place where I see "name" rather than "identity" needs to be disclosed is in the Template:Paid documentation, which seems both legally thin and morally hard to block for. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Where has Jimiwriter declared that they are a paid editor? I can't see any such declaration at User:Jimiwriter or anywhere else. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

David Biddulph at the top of their talk page; This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Akinpelu1990 for his contributions to Wikipedia. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I now see that the notice in question was placed by 331dot, which is why I couldn't see it in Jimiwriter's contributions. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The user had originally posted the notice within the article they created; I moved it to their userpage. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• And here is an exact recreation of the article (one of several) with no disclosure notice by a new user: Jeffrey L. Philips Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Presumably User:Hirra aftab/sandbox and Draft:Jeffrey L. Philips (Attorney) too? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: The draft article is a bit different than most of the other versions but they all are at the very least probably part of the same paid sock farm. Working on the SPI now.... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And 2 incarnations of Jeffrey L. Philips (Attorney) were by Special:Contributions/Talaljavaid. User:Ajibson28 has been blocked as a sock, but there may be more sleepers? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

SurgingLife by User:Akinpelu.ridwan.o is another one, though only a few recreations... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Origin of Species dispute

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

---

• On the Origin of Species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stan Giesbrecht (talk · contribs)

Stan Giesbrecht has made a total of 253 edits since his account was created on 2 December 2015. Most edits concern Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species. Would uninvolved editors please assess Talk:On the Origin of Species and provide advice on how to proceed. In particular, is this addition suitable for an article talk page? The editor does not want advice about talk page procedures from those involved and I'm hoping that a discussion here will resolve the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I read thru here. It seems to me to be a case of WP:LISTEN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Having tried to read the editor's posts, I would say that the key guideline is too long, didn't read, and that the editor is posting a complaint that is far too long to be read in a reasonable time, and that the editor should be cautioned not to filibuster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for two weeks. The huge long post Johnuniq links to is certainly egregious, with four screenfuls (on my good big screen) of opposition research on Dave souza, which goes back a year and expands into frequent references to the nefarious and WP:OWNY actions of "you [=Dave] and your friends" and "your supporters" at the article, and even into an attack on "the left" generally, of which Dave and his "friends" Johnuniq and User:JzG are construed as shining examples. Note that the linked edit restores a rant which had been removed by Johnuniq; it has now again been removed, by a different editor, who I suppose thereby becomes another "friend". I see I warned Stan Giesbrecht in July 2016, in some detail, that he'd be blocked if he persisted in filling up Talk:On the Origin of Species with personal commentary on other editors.[118] I'm afraid I then lost sight of the matter, overwhelmed by the lengthy arguments that followed at User talk:Stan Giesbrecht, and by the fact that the Darwin pages aren't under discretionary sanctions, so I couldn't place a topic ban. That's a lazy admin. :-( While I blocked Stan Giesbrecht for 48 hours in August 2016, specifically for disruptive editing on the article itself, I wish I had followed up on my warning about talkpage misuse sooner, and now I have. Blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 17:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

The user is clearly humour impaired. User:JzG/ThoughtPolice is obviously ironic. I can't make head or tail of what point Stan is trying to make, or why support for Darwin would ever be seen as a political left / right issue (other than in as much as the far right in US politics is heavily influenced by creationists and white supremacists). Guy (Help!) 18:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Humour impaired? So that's your defence, Guy, now you've been caught with your trousers round your ankles! But it's true that irony is dangerous. It's not long since a user referred to my clueless Sitush complaint generator as evidence that Sitush is very disruptive. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC).

That, my friend, is pure genius. Pure undiluted win. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Repeated removal of CSD tag by creator

The following discussion is closed. 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

Ejaygh has repeatedly removed a CSD tag placed on their User:Ejaygh/sandbox ( [1] [2] [3] [4] ) despite being warned ( [A] [B] [C] ). Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Indefblocked following a WP:AIV report. Materialscientist (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Talk:Bernard Lee

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

---

Somebody called Emir of Wikipedia is removing my comments at the above and has done so two times now. As per WP:TPOC I believe this user is not allowed to do this. Can someone please have a word and restore my comments; please hat if nessersary. As per WP:BRD, Bernard Lee should also be restored back to its last stable version and a discussion should be had to establish the justification for adding this infobox. Please note: rather than calling the editor a beastly name or telling them to "fuck off", as is customary, I've decided to adopt this approach as folks keep telling me it's the thing to do. I do hope I'm right. Cassianto^Talk 18:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi has since reverted and restored the comments. The user has also sought to remove the conversational edit summary. Other than a quiet word in their ear about how to conduct themselves, I don't think anything else is required at this stage, but who knows what the night will bring. I hate the fact I've come here and I'll AGF that the editor in question now understands the process. Please archive and if it continues, I'll consider my options again. Cassianto^Talk 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Libel

The following discussion is closed. 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 consider this libelous post. Pahlevun (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

What's libelous about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I think he means it's a PA, and is not a native speaker of English (At least that is my take on it), and yes accusing other users of an Agenda and of being (in effect) agents of a government is not AGF and is a PA.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It does qualify as a personal attack, unless the editor can present evidence in support of his comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Slatersteven is right about my remarks. This is another attack elsewhere. There is another user defamed here (User:Denarivs), but I can only ask for action on behalf of myself. Pahlevun (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually you can report any incident, not just those involving you.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The edits done by "Pahlevun" have completely restructured the article against the organization, MEK/PMOI. He has done 195 edits some by "Denarivs" adding completely negative content and removing any positive or neutral content about Iran's main opposition. He has been removing any attempts to balance any parts of the documents for over a month now and is doing the same thing on another page related to the Iranian opposition, "National Council of Resistance of Iran". This is not the fair practice on Wikipedia and anyone reading the articles will see that "pahlevun" & "Denarivs" have an agenda to discredit that organization. I have checked their talk page and also the article's talk page and they have been warned about the trend of biased editing, but they have kept of repeating and adding more negative material. The readers expectation from Wikipedia is a fair and balanced article.NickRovinsky (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I own no other active accounts. Stop baseless accusations. Pahlevun (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: If you own no other active accounts, then I encourage you to remove the box on your user page that reads This username is an alternative account. or nuance it with some kind of explanation (if you have used other accounts in the past, perhaps you should name them). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether or not Pahlevun has any other active accounts, I don't see any reason to think Denarivs is the the same editor as Pahlevun. Their edit histories are fairly different as is their commenting style. If NickRovinsky didn't intend to suggest they were socks, I suggest he? need to take great care with wording as "He has done 195 edits some by "Denarivs" adding completely negative content" seems to imply they are. If he did intend to suggest they are socks, I think the accusation needs good evidence or should be withdrawn else it may be seen as a personal attack. Incidentally eihter Pahlevun or NickRovinsky should have notified Denarvis about this discussion. I've done so now. As an aside, other then the alternative account thing, Pahlevun's user page is weird. Their English may not be perfect but it's far from en-0. Actually if it were they shouldn't generally be editing articles directly and should only be trying to discuss matters when it's really important. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I do not generally follow this page's edit disputes but I have no other accounts, am not an agent of the Iranian government, and do not like being called an agent of the Iranian government. Denarivs (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have abandoned editing with my previous account and I never abused it. When I put the userbox in my page, I never thought that informing others of my legit use would make prejudgements. Pahlevun (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: OK, so we've established that Pahlevun and Denarivs are two different users. And that NickRovinsky has posted a blatant attack on Pahlevun's talkpage and that he has also tried to demonize Denarivs. Thus far, NickRovinsky's efforts seem to be focused on People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which is experiencing a lot of edit-warring this month. Today, EdJohnston placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year, as detailed here: [119]. Discussion should proceed on the article's talk page. NickRovinsky is warned that any further accusations against other editors may result in being blocked from editing. This should probably cover all bases. Softlavender (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:BD2412

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

---

Bullying and threatening [120] over a pet project that is supposedly finished (per the talk page) and fixed a month ago. Useddenim (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, he seems to be asking about a new change, which you just reverted. I see nothing problematic with his original edit, and this hardly seems a matter for ANI. If this is a "pet project" of his then it appears to enjoy consensus. Why did you revert? Mackensen (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like to provide some background to this matter. In mid-2016, there was an effort to rename New York (currently an article on the state of New York) on the theory that the primary topic of the term is the city. I was not involved in the substance of that effort except in organizing an admin panel to close the discussion. However, it was noted that there are many incorrect incoming links, so after the discussion was closed, I initiated a project to fix those incoming links. Since New York, at the time, had roughly 119,000 direct incoming links, it was impossible to fix them merely by pecking through the "what links here" page. In order to isolate links that needed fixing, I obtained the consensus of the community in a discussion with relatively strong participation at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, to pipe all links intended to point to the state through New York (state). Through this effort, we fixed over 22,500 errors - links that were pointing to "New York" but that were intended to point to New York City (by far the largest source of errors), New York (magazine), New York University, and other targets. As of this point, we have reduced the number of incoming links to about 180 ambiguous cases, where it is difficult to tell whether New York City is intended, or some other place in the state of New York. My comment to Useddenim about the matter being resolved reflected that a template (not the one at issue here) which was causing a direct link was no longer causing that direct link. My edit to Template:NJTransit-Raritan-infobox reflected the consensus in the aforementioned discussion, and my edit summary identified the consensus being implemented. The reversion was incorrect, and I would rather the reverting editor learn to correct themselves in the first instance than to be constantly correcting them. I realize that there are some practices in Wikipedia that are unintuitive at first glance, and that editors might not grasp that they are needed to address larger problems, but I expected my edit summary to address that concern. bd2412 T 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

    Side note: the Maple Leaf template was never, as far as I can tell, linking directly to "New York" in the first place; see the explanation of the second parameter on Template:Amtrak. Choess (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

    • Side side note: it wasn't, but a bug in {{Amtk}} caused an invisible link to be created. I fixed it in December. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

      • Ah! Thanks for the correction. Choess (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What BD2412 is doing is a little unusual, but there seems to be a consensus for it on Talk:New York, as summarized in the closure by R'n'B. The tone of BD2412's message was somewhat officious, but Useddenim's framed his complaint in a way that's disingenuous at best, deceptive at worst: BD4212's remark that "This appears to be resolved now" clearly applies to the Maple Leaf template (although editing that was an error on this part) and it's not clear why Useddenim thinks that it idemnifies his recent changes to the Raritan Line infobox, which linked to "New York (state)" at the time of the remark. Looking over BD2412's talk page history, I see a total of three queries or complaints about this series of changes, mostly resolved satisfactorily; given the scope of the changes (several tens of thousands? of semi-automated edits), I think it's fair to say that he's not unresponsive or over-bold in his mass editing. I don't see anything in BD2412's conduct that's ripe for AN/I at present; if there's an objection to the substance of his changes, it should go to Talk:New York first. Suggest closure with no action. Choess (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but let's also remind BD that language like "take such steps as are necessary to cause you to conform with this consensus" is not helpful, and that in general we don't make editors conform with anything; they just need to not disrupt, and should be warned polity, not threateningly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

BD2412's short [message of 02:01, 18 December 2016, coupled with the fact that the discussion was closed led me to believe that the overall problem had been fixed. [121][122] And despite JFG's excellent suggestion to provide “a permanent explanation of why links to the state must be piped, without forcing puzzled editors to read the [entire Talk: thread]”, I didn't notice anything that clearly indicated that this is to be a continuing WP policy. If BD2412 had taken the time to explain, rather than use the language and phrasing he did, this thread wouldn't have been started. Useddenim (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I linked to the relevant discussion in my edit summary, and again in my post on your talk page. bd2412 T 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Summoned by ping) There are no grounds to condemn BD2412's conduct. That being said, the overall problem can only be fixed by getting consensus on the New York (state) title change. That probably won't happen for a while, so we're stuck with maintaining the kludge… Useddenim, where do you think the permanent explanation should go, and do you have any suggestions how to phrase it more clearly? — JFG ^talk 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

There's the rub. Ideally, some sort of warning should come up when the Save changes button is pressed if the string [[New York| or [[New York]] appears in the edit. Failing that, it should probably be stated in bold text at the very top of Talk:New York (as the #Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links thread will eventually be archived). Useddenim (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A further thought: can whatever mechanism that informs BD2412 of a new New York link be tweaked to notify the editor who added that link of the situation and preferred alternate? Useddenim (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if DPL bot could be adapted to do this? Pinging JaGa (though he/she doesn't seem very active now, so maybe someone could send an email after a while if no response). EEng 00:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Useddenim I admit it seemed clear to me from looking at the talk page that it would have to be a more or less permanent maintenance project, but I was reading pretty carefully to figure out what this was about. I apologize for characterizing your complaint as "deceptive"; I can see from your remarks that this was a good-faith misunderstanding. BD2412, looking at the "dispute resolution clause" and your editing interests on your talk page, you seem to be comfortable operating in a legal or legalistic venue. You may not see anything undue about "Please indicate whether you are willing to conform your conduct...," but there's something about the register of that phrase that will make people bristle, more so than if the same sentiment were expressed in informal terms. Anyway, both of you now seem to be on the same page as far as why this is happening; maybe move the discussion to Talk:New York to figure out how to avoid misunderstandings while carrying out this maintenance in the long term? Thank you both, it's pleasant to see de-escalation rather than escalation here. Choess (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

These are all valid points. My response to being reverted could have been clearer and less aggressive. I also agree that there needs to be some more formal system in place to inform editors of this project when they create links that conflict with it. It was not my intent to make this a permanent thing, but to continue it until the number of incoming links to New York reached zero, which would make it easy to track new errors. As it stands, this would require the repair of the 180 remaining stubborn links. Once those are done, a system for tracking new links would be sufficient to fix any new errors. On the other hand, if New York becomes a disambiguation page, which is another possibility, then links to New York will receive the same kinds of alerts and repair efforts as links to other disambiguation pages. bd2412 T 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Recommend immediate close with no action. One single aggressive talk-page post does not warrant an ANI thread. ANI is for persistent, repeated, longterm behavioral issues which have not been able to be resolved via all other means. BD2412's edit to the article was correct and should not have been reverted. Softlavender (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Can I quote you on that? Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Huldra

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

---

It was suggested to me that I either drop this warning [123] , [124] or report this [125] in which the user obliquly implies other users of bias.

It is rather indirect, but it is clear to me the user is implying that anyone who refuses to allow the word Arab to be used do so for reasons of disliking the word "Palestinian" and of (in effect) supporting ethnic cleansing. There is an element of overreaction to my ANI, but only because I was warned to drop it or report it. I have an aversion to this kind of moral blackmail (for that is what it is).

And heShe does say another user is being disingenuous, hardly not commenting on the user.

I had in fact not reported in, nor had I followed it up.

Slatersteven (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also I am not sure that this is all about [126] I have no idea what this "pity argument" that has been popping up all days is, as I only posted about the above twice (hardly all day).Slatersteven (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I‘m a female, and I say as much on my user page. Please refer to me as "she", and not as "he", Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies I did not bother to look at your user page.Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Bolter21 (not an admin) is pretty snarky for no reason in that diff. There's nothing stopping him from checking his attitude and removing the page from his watchlist if he's "sick of it", is there? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but is he right that Huldra's comments were not a PA, and as such I should not have warned her (yes I know my last post to her was a bit sharp, but I felt that she was not taking it seriously)?Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah well, talk page discussions, particularly if you fall down that particular rabbit hole, seem to illicit strong emotional responses to editors. You can always remove the warning if you feel like you were hasty once you've calmed down a bit (although that might mean a short apology!) but there's no long term harm done. (and no, I'm not sure it was a personal attack, it appears to be just a throwaway angry comment) Exemplo347 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you mean Huldra's comment was not a PA, fair enough. Then I withdraw my accusation against her.Slatersteven (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I think everyone in that discussion is getting a bit heated. I've always found you to be reasonable when we've interacted in the past, Slatersteven, so don't think for a second that I'm saying you're being completely out of line - if it was possible I'd throw a bucket of water over everyone in that RfC discussion to cool you all down! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I came here to get an answer, there is no need to appoligise. I was in the wrong, fair enough. I have apologized to Huldra on her talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please stop IP on Microtonal music

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

---

IP 128.189.141.193 is vandalizing Microtonal music repeatedly. Please consider put a stop to it by temporarily blocking the IP. huji—TALK 00:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the speed at which the IP undoes my edits or that by others is so high that it makes me think it is a bot script, not a human who is doing this. Consider running a checkuser if this is not a first. huji—TALK 00:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Huji, this is actually the wrong board to report such problems. The proper venue is WP:AIV if the edits are actual WP:VANDALISM. If the edits are merely disruptive but not vandalism, you first need to warn the editor on their talk page, using one of the "edit warring" warnings from WP:WARN. (I have already done that for you just now.) If they persist, you need to report them at WP:ANEW. If after all that there is still disruption later on, then request semi-protection (which will prevent IP edits) of the article at WP:RFPP, and explain the ongoing IP vandalism. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Hijacked page

Page move vandalism reverted and account indeffed by Mackensen. Feel free to reopen (or refile if this is archived) if this happens again. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Following the pattern documented here, User:Pete Wills hijacked the dab page Yasukawa, moving it to create the article Xonex Capital. The dab page and its history need to be restored. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also see my last report. — Gorthian (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, here's the dab page edit history: [127] (this may be self-evident but it wasn't to me). -- Softlavender (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I detailed everything in an SPI as well.— Gorthian (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted the edits, moved the page back, and indeffed the account. These are fun (not). Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Legal threat 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.

---

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

User made legal threats and personal attacks in this diff. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits from Pinksugar77

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

---

Greetings all. Allow me to point out the user Pinksugar77. They were recently blocked from editing for 31 hours by Widr for persistently making disruptive edits.

Over the past couple of days, this pattern has emerged again. As it's not strictly a case for WP:AIV I thought I'd raise it here - "Edits aren't vandalism" is the usual response I've seen at AIV for cases like this. Thoughts? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:Exemplo347, sorry I didn't leave a note here, but yeah, considering the user's behavior I saw no other option. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Akita (dog) - Akita (page C)

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

---

Hi all,
There appears to be some mischief afoot on this page to do with cut-and-paste page moves. I would fix it myself, but I'm not good with WP:MOVE-y stuff, because... well, for most people there's a part of the brain that functions to remember where they left their car keys and work ID card, but mine seems to contain a concise history of Western visual art from 1850 to the present instead.
Pete "not good with numbers" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw this after the fact - I've moved the page content back to Akita (dog) and have left Akita Inu as a redirect, deleting the other pages that were created in the process (Akita (page) and Akita (page C)). Still ferreting around to check that everything's tidy, but I think this is pretty much resolved. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What who when? Was this AFd'ed?Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, mucked up links.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

History merge is a bit of a mess; if someone wouldn't mind checking my working that would be appreciated. All of the history is now at Akita (dog), if this should be moved to Akita Inu (currently the redirect) please feel free to do so via the normal move process. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Per commonname it should probably be at Akita (with or without the dog) as that is how it is generally referred to. Unlike the Shiba Inu where the Inu is usually included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Per User:Keznen, the user who performed these moves is a shared account. Bradv 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And now blocked as such by Nick. JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

GlenLBui

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Sock blocked, article protected, explanations left on talk page. Thanks for the quick response. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Steppenwolf (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GlenBui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GlenLBui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The second of these two users popped up just after the first was frustrated in his attempts to add COI material to the article. The second user is trying to add the same material. The user names indicate a COI that GlenBui has not denied (see his talk page).

I will open an SPI if needed but this one seems so obvious I was hoping we could just block, at least the second one. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are diffs to material added by GlenBui and material added by GlenLBui. Note the name "Glen Bui" shows up in both. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They sure quack like a duck on steroids and the COI is undeniable. Kleuske (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked GlenLBui as a sock puppet. I'd request other admins not block GlenBui, the master account. I'm going to try to explain Wikipedia policy to him, and I think the sock puppetry may be explainable as a newbie mistake made while flustered by a content dispute. If he continues creating new accounts or edit warring, that's different, of course. But I'm going to try to direct him to the article's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The situation is under control but just for reference here is another sock that just appeared.

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

— Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC) I was having trouble logging in so finally I got GlenBui to work, the other ones are me but were only created due to the log in problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenBui (talk • contribs) 02:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Грищук ЮН

This editor has been endlessly adding unsourced material (mostly as bad machine translations from Russian) and WP:OR to all sorts of articles. They've had several warnings, including a level 4, but it keeps on coming. I could simply report this as vandalism, but something tells me that WP:ANI is the better place to fix this.

Here's one good example: in an article about a military ship, editor has added a long, rambling, unsourced, incomprehensible series of tangents on language, including an anecdote about a schoolboys' saying: [128], [129]

Here's another, in the same article about the ship, a long and unsourced analysis of a photo of one sailor: [130].

Have a browse through the edit history of Mignon desires her fatherland, and you'll find the editor tried again and again to add WP:OR, including a long poem in Russian about the editors' feelings on first seeing the painting (with machine translation to English alongside), endless unsourced tangential anecdotes, and so on. Editor seemed quite mystified that I and other editors kept removing it, and instead created their ideal presentation at User:Грищук ЮН/Draft, with all sorts of unsourced pet theories about Scheffer's real, hidden meaning in the painting.

User:HitroMilanese tried with admirable patience to explain to Грищук ЮН the problem of WP:OR at User talk:HitroMilanese#Jesus in a female guise and User talk:HitroMilanese#User:Грищук ЮН/Draft The friendly advice given there does not seem to be sinking in: Грищук ЮН still continually adds WP:OR to nearly every article they touch. Any advice on how to fix this problem would be welcome. Wikishovel (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: That's as maybe (I've been there myself!) but to say ' I could simply report this as vandalism'; no, you couldn't. Have you read WP:V? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: You have failed to inform the user under discussion as required so that they can particpate in this conversation about their edits. Please rectify at once, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox:: no, I informed the editor immediately after posting here: [131] Wikishovel (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well that's weird. I did look, of course, but somehow it didn't show at the time and the last edit in the history was from last month. Caching issue or database lag I guess. Never mind. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. But can anybody help me with this? I and others have warned the editor to level 4, but no reply at their talk page, and no reply here. What can I do next? Wikishovel (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid the user needs to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE. However, I would say the first block should be of short duration, since they clearly make some good edits. Any thoughts?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:- below, sorry, forgot to ping. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

As I hinted at above, I've been aware of this editor since March last year. In someways they're a perfect editor- no drama, over 8,000 mainspace contributions, clean block log, thirty articles created, and over 80% edit-summary usage. The elephant in the room, of course, is language. The articles aren't so bad- they just need a bit of tidying... like this. Having said all that, the 0.5% of his edits that are to user-talk are like this. The real problem is the inability to communicate on what is, of course the English Wikipedia. Their absence from this board is possibly explained by the fact that they either do not understand the notice or are not prepared to demonstrate their use of language her. Frankly, the editor needs- not so much a mentor- but a translator. And I'm not quite sure how that would be done even if we actually were able to find one! It would be desperately sad, though, to lose them as an editor; I just can't quite see how we can get around these flaws. It would be nice if we could though. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I can talk to them in Russian (assuming they speak Russian), but I am not prepared to do it on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I agree, and I think I said something of the sort- after all, if we get tied up like that, we are effectively halving our own output, and that's detrimental to the thing. Would it be possible perhaps for you to have a chat though? Explain, who you are, where they stand, how we can help but only if they help themselves, etc? You don't have to. But perhaps you could judge their attitude and general competency by the nature of their response. Would you be willling? This isn't an official proposal- as it's somewhat beyond your call of duty! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Left them a message; they state Russian is their mothertongue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Good afternoon, Dear Sirs! I see, you are discussing about me. Can be difference in our understanding the situation about my articles in the following:

1. I do not see original recearch in my article SS Metallurg Anosov and you see the original research. The same situation was about my articles of Soviet Ships, as from beginning somebody wrote that that articles are original research and the sources from Interned seamen's talk is not a sourse in doubt. I mentioned, that in doubt Soviet official sources and not semen's talk. I show that and found out some other sorces to confirm, that the semen said correct and Wikipedia was agree, that the my Ship's articles are not otiginal recearch. In the article SS Metallurg Anosov part of information is clear my iformation, which was not printed anywhere before. If on you opinion it is original research, you can delete.
2. I limited to write in this article more to confirm, as this article about the ship and I had write minimum.
3. To explain, I have write other articles, but I also limited by permition, what possible to write and what better do not write. It is why I wrote allitle and not too much.
4. Any way, if you deleted the part of text, which on your opinion is original research, I will not back it and will not write interesting articles about the Soviet Union. I can show you plenty articles in Russian and Ukranian Wikipedia, where plenty misunderstanding due to each country understand this as per their interests. For example and it is also can be as confirmation (I intended to write this articles also):
   1. Приказ о депортации украинцев в 1944 году and Таємний наказ про депортацію українців - here the photo of document, where mentined General Zhukov and Colonel Fyodorov. Zhukov, Andropov (Andropov-Fyodorov) and Andropov's father in low Fyodorov worked together during Karelian war in 1930-s also. It could be separate articles to describe why Rossia Wikipwdia does not agree with Ulranian Wikipedia and why each side can say that other side has original research. Who correct in this situation. I can confirm by my experiance that both sides are correct partly, but I have to write about my life to explain. I am Ukranian and I was not deported from Ukraine due to was used another original way, then "Order about deportation of Ukranian in 1944". Seem my experiance and my life can not be used as confirmation for you and English Wikipedia will not understand who is correct in this situation: Russian Wikipedia or Ukranian Wikipedia.
   2. Паткуль, Иоганн Рейнгольд and Йоганн Рейнгольд фон Паткуль - the difference is my part in Ukranian WIkipedia, which I took from source Д.І.Яворницький "Історія запорозьких козаків", том 3, Коментарі Г.Я.Сергієнка - this book wrote Dmytro Yavornytsky during Tsar Russia and this book was printed only one time during Tsar Russia and after was prohibited due to Tsat and after Soviet Union was not agree to confirm his information as his book confirm some history moments about Ukrain (in this articles directly about Peter I and Mazepa, where the writer describe why Mazepa was against the Peter I. This bool by Dmytro Yavornytsky was printed again in Ukrain in 1990-s after the Soviet Union colapse.

As you see each country Wikipedia can describe articles of other Wikipedias as "original research" and own articles as "correct information and correct sources". In my articles I confirm my infromation (my life) by other sources and it is not original research. Any way, if it is not interesting I will stop to write more and seems nobody will write it for English Wikipedia to understand situation and misunderstanding between RUssian and Ukranian, as each other Wikipedia (Rissian, for example) can cry to you that my inforormation is original research. I t was already one time, one year or one and half year ago about. Also every Soviet source needs to be checked and passed original recearch also as too much wrong information Soviet sources have. The same today, - each country writes own understanding of situation. It is means that we can sea in the most articles original research, if we want understnd it as original research. Thanks. Грищук ЮН (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's probably a WP:CIR problem here, but can we find someone fluent in Russian who can explain kindly to this editor why he probably won't be able to help us here on the English Wikipedia? He's clearly working in good faith, and I'd hate for him to go away with nothing but a kick in the butt. EEng 07:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. That reply probably suffices. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter:... Well; any thoughts? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  I already tried, at my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

  We are now continuing there, looks like the user has some valid points.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. In Russian :D brilliant! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

More eyes needed: RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?

On Talk:Kfar Ahim, I start a RfC concerning wether or not we should write [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] (My preference), or [[Palestinian people|Arab]] (Number 57 preference),

Number 57 (talk · contribs), after he has commented on the RfC, then goes around changing the wording into his preferred choice. ([132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146]),

My question is, is this acceptable behaviour from an admin?

I would also greatly appreciate "outside views" on this RfC, Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

As usual in this topic sphere, the full picture has not been presented. The above should have read "changing the wording back after Huldra had recently changed it". Number 57 23:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it should have read "changing the wording back after Huldra had changed it after Number 57 changed it." Mostly, it has been me who has inserted these references (Using Khalidi as a ref. for which Israeli kibbutz/moshavs is located on which depopulated Palestinian village land). I have noted that since last summer, Number 57 has changed [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] to [[Palestinian people|Arab]] whenever he has updated the population of the place. I have changed some back, however, unlike Number 57, I have of course not changed any of them after the RfC started.Huldra (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And again, not the full picture – over half of these articles (from what I can work out, Even Menachem, Bnei Re'em, Kokhav Michael, Beit Shikma, Otzem, Gat, Israel, Talmei Yaffe and Mavki'im) had never contained the word Palestinian until Huldra added it in the past couple of weeks as part of an ongoing campaign to shoehorn the word "Palestinian" into as many articles about Israel as possible. But anyway, I would welcome outside input into the RfC to combat the domination of the topic area by editors with a certain POV. Number 57 08:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

So far your replies here are entirely irrelevant. The only reason there is a case here against you is that you made multiple edits in preemption of an active RfC in which you are a protagonist. Huldra did not do that. Why don't you explain why this behavior is reasonable? I'm honestly mystified. Zero^talk 08:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I was reverting to the status quo until a decision is made, which is standard practice on Wikipedia and I think quite reasonable. I would say I'm mystified as to why you think pointing out that Huldra is not being entirely straightforward in the way she has presented her complaint is "entirely irrelevant", but sadly I'm not. Personally I think non-neutral wording of the RfC is of much greater concern to the community... I'm also not sure what the point of bringing this to ANI was unless you are seeking to get me blocked? Number 57 08:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have repeatedly asked you to suggest what you think is a "neutral wording", but you have made no such suggestion, just complained that my wording is "non-neutral". Obviously, I am not trying to get you blocked, but I would like you to see that making 15 controversial edits after I had raised a concern about them is quite disruptive editing. This sort of editing is something I would typically expect from a newbie in the field, and certainly not from an admin. Huldra (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: I confess that one of the reasons I raised the question here, was also to get more "outside" eyes at the RfC.... Huldra (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I made it very clear what was problematic in your RfC wording, so the onus is really on you to sort it out. But anyway, I actually made a suggestion about four hours before you posted this comment... Unfortunately you seem to have been more focused on personal attacks (your inferred claim that I think Arabs "can 'go back' to where other Arabs live" seems to suggest that I support ethnic cleansing and I hope you will strike it from the record as also requested by another editor). Unfortunately I see your conduct has prompted one of the uninvolved editors to leave the discussion. Number 57 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you are quite unwilling to see any problem with making controversial mass changes in articles, after a RfC has been opened about the matter, in spite of the clear policies on RfCs. Your other statements have been answered on the Talk:Kfar Ahim. Huldra (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

(Like Number 57, I am an "involved administrator".) The relevant text from WP:RfC reads "Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved." Zero^talk 05:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

And now we have PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The OP's description of the RfC is incorrect and misleading. The RfC is not about wikilinks and their target articles; the RfC question is simply "Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"?" -- Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Me-123567-Me

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

---

User:Me-123567-Me has decided to merge/delete a large number of state party affiliates of the Green Party of the United States with no discussion whatsoever. This includes readding speedy delete tags after they're contested and engaging in other disruptive editing. --TM 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided to be bold per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montana Green Party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

But then you didn't even consider other discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wisconsin Green Party that ended otherwise AND ignoring all attempts to warn you about this disruptive editing. When another editor contests your boldness, you should not engage in edit warring.--TM 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

RE: Wisconsin example - You are correct on this, and my apologies for that. I should have checked the talk pages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This is also includes multiple examples of re-adding speedy deletion tags after they've been contested and a general ignoring of all rules. Seeking admin intervention.--TM 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When they are contested, you don't remove the tags. You wait for an admin to do so after they decide the result. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what WP:CSD says. Any editor may contest a speedy deletion by removing the tag, providing they didn't create the article. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria to avoid additional misunderstandings. - Eureka Lott 19:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, just because an article isn't contested Namiba (talk · contribs), doesn't mean it will get deleted. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but if a Speedy Deletion tag is removed by an editor who is not the creator of the article, an alternative deletion process should be used (PROD or AfD). Exemplo347 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It says very clearly on the speedy tag "If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice". Before you begin being bold, it'd be best to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia process.--TM 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party contains nominations for 23 different state-level green parties. I consider this a continuation of the disruptive editing by Me-123567-Me. It's extremely POINTY.--TM 19:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me has taken a number of unilateral actions via page merges to the list article that might have been dealt with through a broader discussion at Talk:Green Party of the United States, which I believe has more watchers. That's what I would recommend. The tiny bit of discussion at the list article's talk page does not suffice. Plus, WP:DTTR, although that's a separate issue and is less formal. Dustin (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• The editor in question has now violated the WP:3RR rule at Maryland Green Party.--TM 19:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's the 4th edit that would violate that rule. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I count 5 edits in the past 24 hours at the Maryland Green Party.--TM 19:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not all of them were reverting. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Me-123567-Me, you have four reverts in 24 hours. TM, I'm not sure what you're thinking, reverting back in unsourced info three times without explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• I've taken it to AfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Namiba (talk · contribs) is removing speedy deletion tags instead of contesting per policy. Has been warned multiple times, removes warnings from his talk page.[147] Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• • Me-123567-Me, your warnings, as another editor has already told you, were not valid. Please stop until you properly understand how the deletion process works. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I did. As mentioned above, I took it to AfD. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• The AfD is messy - some parties have enough sources to pass the GNG, some don't - and filing an AfD in response to this discussion seems a bit... (insert civil word here) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • • • • • @Me-123567-Me:, according to the CSD policy, the only person who may not remove speedy deletion tags is the article creator. And there is no prohibition on removing warnings from one's own talk page. Bradv 20:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked; however as soon as I hit the block button I had a change of heart and thought a final warning would suffice for the moment. If any other admin thinks a block is justified, feel free to reblock. I went with a month as he's previously had a 2-week block for similar behaviour, and escalated accordingly, and it's more than one article he's disrupting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like an Admin to take a look at the AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Party - and see if it should be allowed to run, or if WP:SNOW applies? It's a mass nomination of a group of articles about various state-level political parties. Some don't appear to meet the GNG but some definitely do. I have no idea why an AfD like this would be filed, so I'm struggling to assume good faith here. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Closed. Me-123567-Me, when I was closing this AFD I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Green Party which you opened a year ago. Given that you were told at that time the AFD was disruptive and that you were blocked for the exact same behavior you're showing now (edit warring over CSD tags, giving inappropriate warnings), can you please explain why you should not be indefinitely blocked to prevent future disruption as you seemed to have learned nothing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It continually frustrates me that we have terrible articles that aren't properly sourced, and when I try to remove the uncited infomration such as in Maryland Green Party, it gets re-added back. by multiple editors. I also like efficiency - so I see the AfD as a way to discuss a bulk of articles that really need help. I've tried. Each of them I've gone through before even considering merging to try to find additional content and sources. Unfortunately I have to rely on Google alone. I feel like it's an uphill battle trying to improve on these mostly terrible articels. So my desire is to light a fire under editors who are passionate about the state Green Party articles, and get some help. It's already worked one with fellow editor. See Talk:List_of_state_Green_Parties_in_the_United_States. So I apologize if what I am doing seems distruptive. However, I am not sure what else I can do to get these articles vastly improved, but even more importantly, get them cited. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Me-123567-Me, AFD is not a place where you can list articles to be improved. You can ask at various projects' talk pages for help with that. If none is forthcoming (which may be likely) then it's up to you to do the improvements you'd like to see. We have hundreds of thousands of stub and/or "terrible" articles that are waiting to be expanded/improved. They don't get nominated for deletion because AFD does not stand for Articles for Improvement. And what you're doing does not seem to be disruptive, it is disruptive. You were told that last year and editors are telling you that now. Also, what's with the repeated misuse of template warnings and removal of CSD tags? You were clearly warned about this last time: [148] I'm not getting the sense you won't do this again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I got the message. I got the message about the CSD tags too. I also realize now I need to tackle each article individually, perhaps via Talk:Green Party of the United States to build some unity and perhaps a Green Party project on its own, which could only be good not only for these articles, but Green Party articles worldwide. I tried to take on too big of a task, instead I should have approached each article individually to gain help in improvin git. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent copyright violations by User:Chitt66

The following discussion is closed. 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 and other editors have given warnings on User_talk:Chitt66 about his repeated violations of the copyright rules, particularly regarding non-free images, but after those warnings he has continued to use images in situations where there is not a valid NFUR. I fear therefore that a block is necessary. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright law, but some of the pictures uploaded might actually be public-domain, according to Copyright_law_of_the_United_States, "Therefore, works published before 1964 that were not renewed are in the public domain." In addition, from [149] it would seem to me that the 1929 photograph is in the public domain. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If for a particular image there is evidence that it is PD, that evidence can be presented in the licencing process for the image upload, but if the image is uploaded as non-free, then the conditions for the use of non-free images must be complied with. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are other images that are definitely still copyrighted and still being used inappropriately. After, literally, pleading with them to stop they continue to violate the fair use policy. This is a problem and they do not seem to want, or be capable, or stopping. For this reason, I support the block until the time comes when they can explain how images can be used properly under our fair use policy. --Majora (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User continues to put in fair use violations into articles [150]. This isn't going to stop. Requesting a block. --Majora (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked; an unblock would be contingent on demonstrating a thorough understanding of copyright policy, especially regarding images, and a commitment not to repeat the actions which lead to the reams upon reams of warnings in prior months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Subtle intentional errors 73.161.214.42

I noticed that 73.161.214.42 has introduced subtle errors that seem very hard to catch. Some of the edits are blatant vandalism, eg. replacing "German" with "Race traitor" However, I just noticed the apparent introduction of what seems like an intentional mispelling after 8 months. I'm concerned that this user may have introduced errors that will not be recognized for a long time, if ever. For example, I can't easily verify some significant factual changes like this. On the other hand, they appear to have made some positive contributions and some of their edits seem like well-intentioned newbie challenges. Can someone review all their contributions for errors and offer a warning message or something next time they contribute? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• I went through the contributions and they were mostly fine, save the issues you've highlighted. I'm not sure how stable that IP is; the only common thread appears to be Catholicism. Mackensen (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

84.250.188.236

This IP address has been devoted to adding an external link to a personal website on several pages pertaining to blues artists. Here are some recent examples: [151] [152] [153]. The IP has been warned on three different occasions but has nevered responded or show signs of stopping. They also may have a conflict of interest with the article Valeriy Pisigin, and may be connected to User:Traffic1957, who has made similar edits. Could an admin please block one or both accounts to prevent further disruption?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I notified Traffic1957. I think an explanation would be nice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF please. It's pretty clear that Traffic1957 is probably Valeriy Pisigin. But what seems evident to me is that, firstly, Pisigin is a respected blues scholar/fan who has edited here in good faith and whose potential to contribute here should be welcomed; and, at the same time, they remain fairly clueless about how they can best contribute. Clearly, linking to their own website gallery of photos is inappropriate. It's possible that their awareness of how they can contribute here might be limited by language issues. My point is that we should perhaps cut them a little slack, and continue to encourage them to contribute constructively - rather than issuing threats of blocks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

TBAN request

Made by

ATS

Affected party

Ronz

Topic

Grace VanderWaal and all related articles

Reason

WP:POINT

Evidence

Talk:Grace VanderWaal, particularly §§ "ELs again", "Having two Youtube sites is nothing worth noting" and "Vevo link"

Statement by ATS

User Ronz has been engaging in repeated, belligerent disruption at Grace VanderWaal and its talk page. In particular, the editor has continued to remove data (these are just the most recent examples; 758122056 claims in the edit summary a consensus in direct opposition to any actual consensus), dishonestly citing BLP, EL*, SOAP and REFSPAM (none of which applies) in order to instead enforce IDONTLIKEIT. (Invocation of BLP is particularly dishonest in light of BLPSOURCES and BLPREMOVE, the actual policies under which data is to be deleted.)

When called on his actions, Ronz invokes CHOICE and FOC (the equivalent of answering "Stop disrupting the article by deleting content!" with "You need to focus on content."), while berating anyone other than himself for failure to gain a consensus.

The user also has been properly upbraided for at least one outright lie.

Most recently, Ronz has played the victim card, complaining that he's entitled to explanations that already have been provided.

I believe it is necessary to invoke a mandatory TBAN to stop the disruption since the editor is refusing, and with trademark belligerence, to self-impose.

—ATS 🖖 talk 18:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• ATS is spamming external links in contradiction to WP:ELNO and WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. Her youtube and vevo channels are linked from her official website and the additional links contain nothing extra. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The ELs include unique videos that are not easily linked off her official site (in fact, last I checked, they're not linked from gracevanderwaalofficial.com at all, and the site is down for the moment). Only in death is demonstrating a terrible lack of knowledge of what constitutes "spamming". —ATS 🖖 talk 19:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Telling Ronz to "Go FOC yourself" and, referring to him quite clearly, "fuck the vandal" is a pretty bad idea. It taints your edits.Doug Weller talk 19:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all you read out of that, eh? Unfortunate. The user's activity—which is the purpose here—was monumentally frustrating to at least four other editors. That is the takeway. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't get to dictate the direction of the discussion. Once you post a complaint here, your own behavior also comes under scrutiny. As you've been here 10 years, you should already know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actual progress is being attempted with respect to the actual report and possible outcomes of the actual report. Contribute, or don't. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not required to be linked directly. Her official youtube, vevo, twitter etc are already all linked from her website. WP:EL explicitly addresses this. Its certainly *not* down as I can access it and one of the youtube links takes you to the EXACT same page as the one linked from her official website. And I know they are because my PC is currently playing the same damn song in stereo. So no, no unique content. Linkspam. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's working for me now, and it has changed. This does not address the user's actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And Jesus Christ, the only reason the Vevo link you have put in as an external link is different to the Vevo link from her website is that you have put the external link to the 'videos' section of her channel instead of 'home' as her official website does. Claiming that is 'unique' content is duplicitious. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Someone needs to check the edit history—and, no, that someone is not Jesus Christ. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• In addition, the editor is denying any responsibility for his part in the "war". —ATS 🖖 talk 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with ATS. Ronz has been trolling, deleting useful information and otherwise vandalizing the Grace VanderWaal article since she began editing there. I fully support the proposed TBAN against Ronz. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• I noticed the fuss at Grace VanderWaal and have been trying to help but unfortunately Ronz has got under people's skin and we are seeing the tactical blunders mentioned above. For example, referring to Ronz as a vandal is an own-goal at ANI because WP:VAND and commonsense dictate that being misguided does not make one a vandal. Also, retorts merely cause third parties to assume Ronz must be on the right side. The fundamental issue concerns a couple of external links. It's easy to provide a sea of blue links showing how such links should be discouraged, but in this case Ronz has been quite needlessly harassing contributors over trivia. Consider the benefits that would arise from removing one external link, and balance that against all the ill-will caused as good editors have tried to develop this article. Ronz drops in every few days to post another condescending set of blue links while never engaging with the content issues that others try to raise concering why links should be retained. Ronz should be told to leave the article alone—there are plenty of puff pages needing attention (I noticed this and this yesterday). Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Ronz has repeatedly engaged in edit warring and editing against consensus. I support the proposed TBAN. Somambulant1 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• commentI support Johnuniq's comments here. Ronz has been involved in four discussions on the talk page since October 29 and started 2 of them. I believe it was Einstein who offered doing the same thing and expecting different results is madness. We have multiple consensus making processes. In addition to a RFC we have WP:ELN. There's no real issue honestly in what he's done (trying to apply EL policy and/or guidelines) but how he has done it. I do not support a topic ban here. I think this can be simply solved by telling Ronz to stop this behavior. Ronz, not just in this article but in all articles, if you can't take an action that will lead to a consensus (such as an RFC) then drop the stick because you are beating a dead horse.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I would have no argument with telling Ronz to stop this behavior as long as any consequences have teeth. His latest edits to the talk page indicate a continuing unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his own actions. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me try something crazy. @Ronz: It's reasonably time to stop this fight over EL. I would like to request something of you. I certainly feel that it's reasonable. It' in regards to the article at Grace VanderWaal. I would like to ask you stop all activity there in regards to external links unless that activity can be reasonably expected to end in a consensus (such as an RFC). Basically constructive actions. The request is that you no longer remove the links with out first gaining a consensus. You no longer open a discussion on the talk page about the external links (unless its an RFC). And if you do upon an RFC that you limit your discussion about the rfc to necessary comments to make your case. In short I would like to ask you to respect the current consensus or take action that would result in a broader consensus. This seems reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing crazy about it: I'm happy to avoid making any edits to the article related to this topic while we get this dispute resolved. 20:16, 6 January 2017

I hope that's enough. Maybe we can get others to agree to the same? 0RR on video and video-hosting links basically--Ronz (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry could you be more clear @Ronz:? Are you saying that you are going to open a neutral RFC to resolve this issue once and for all? Before they agree to a 0rr it might be best that they know what thy are agreeing to? An RFC and then you live with the results?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Demanding that one side of a content dispute stop trying to enforce guidelines because the editors who violate it also make useful contributions seems... incredibly weird. Though I do agree that Ronz would be better off just abandoning this article. Let the page accrue external links to its authors' content. Spend your efforts somewhere that doesn't generate so much angst over something so silly. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not a demand and it is a request, well on my part. And as far as enforcing the rules we are talking about a guideline. More than a few of them have held that this guideline doesn't apply. In the end this whole matter involves a content dispute.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's great but back on the ranch... The details are not completely clear yet but Ronz would like to end this someway constructively. And he has asked one small thing. Until it concludes you add no more links. My understanding is the current links that you want stay in the article and you add no new ones until this matter is resolved in a consensus in some constructive and fruitful process (I assume an RFC).This doesn't sound unreasonable. What do you say?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly—and this may come as a surprise—I don't care which ELs are there and which are not. I care about an honest effort to seek and find consensus, as opposed to a forced consensus-of-one wrapped in guideline-dressing. We specifically forbid "but I'm RIGHT", do we not? —ATS 🖖 talk 04:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're just trying to "prove a point"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BINGO. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

At Grace VanderWaal, everyone is editing constructively except User:Ronz. S/he has, at every turn, made it more difficult for everyone else to develop the entire article and dominated the discussions on the talk page with repetitive demands, accusations and disruptions of numerous kinds. There are experienced editors working on the article, and we have resolved all disagreements and reached WP:CONSENSUS on all the issues. Only Ronz disagrees with the consensus. Ronz should be banned from the page so that we can get on with developing it. This subject, Grace VanderWaal, only came to national attention recently, and Ronz has stood in the way of our ability to develop it to follow the subject's fast-moving career because of Ronz's obsession with deleting ELs. The article has only 4 ELs. Ronz wants to delete 3 of those. Those 3 links have been discussed extensively at the Talk page, and the consensus is to keep them. Here is why: VanderWaal is notable mainly for three things: (1) her YouTube videos; (2) her new EP; and (3) her appearances (and win) on AGT. The three ELs that Ronz disagrees with are of key interest to any reader of this article. The first is a link to the subject's main YouTube channel. The second is a link to the "videos" page of her GraceVanderWaalVEVO channel that features her EP and the songs on the EP. The third links to the appearance on AGT that made the subject notable and famous and which has been viewed well over 100 million times on social media (both YouTube and Facebook). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see that any of that matters. In the end you are personally arguing for a WP:CONLIMITED while he's arguing that specific policies and/or guidelines apply. The greater issue on part of @Ronz:, as I see it, is wp:stick. Without attempting to end this discussion constructively with some consensus making process they are beating a dead horse. After two months at this point this is simply disruptive especially considering how little the issue actually matters in the grand scheme of things. They should either drop it or move on to some constructive form of consensus making. In the event they fail to do either a tban should be considered. Above it seems that they have agreed to move on to some form of constructive consensus making process. As such there's no need to tban them. They seem to have asked one simple thing of you. That you add no more External links until this constructive consensus making process that they opt for is complete.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

• Administrative review is requested of Baseball Bugs' activity hereinabove (and below). Thank you. —ATS 🖖 talk 05:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am rather sensitive to the issue of spamming, and your excessive linking looks like spam and promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: I had already started what could be used as the start of a dispute resolution activity. Personally, I was thinking WP:ELN, but if editors think an RfC is better, I'm for it. Do you think that it is a good start? Personally, it's not that we haven't worked on constructive consensus-making, but that editors do not respect the consensus when it doesn't go their way. I've certainly compromised, and even provided arguments for the material that I disagree about including. ATS says he doesn't care which links are in the article. I think Somambulant1 has been responsive to discussion. That leaves SSilvers. Will he respect new consensus? I hope so, but don't think his answer should sway us from trying to get this settled. (I'm unlikely to have much time to respond further today.) --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: ELN is not very accurate. An RFC will be more expedient. It's time to put this baby to bed. Honestly I'd rather you move on but if you must a RFC would be better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• No editor who continues, especially through a "resolution" process, to assert that he alone is right and everyone else is wrong, and who starts and propagates an edit war on that basis, will ever be "on the right track". This was the genesis of the disruption, and the editor refuses to address it. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Looking through his edits to the article [154], it is clear that Ronz has been editing aggressively and uncollaboratively and, if I may say so, stubbornly, on it since late October. Even two editors who have at times criticized each other (ATS and Ssilvers) have still managed to edit constructively and collaboratively there [155]. So I would say unless the disruptive editing from Ronz has stopped, he should take a temporary break from the article (either voluntary or by community decision). While I'm at it though, I will reiterate what others have observed: ATS, your personal communication style and your reactivity lessen and in some cases completely torpedo whatever valid points you are trying to make. Softlavender (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments, Softlavender, even as I would argue with "completely torpedo". That said, you understand quite clearly the frustration facing those of us—and, giving credit where due, to the lion's share of the work, by Ssilvers—who try to create and improve articles in good faith. Was that frustration good cause to call me a spammer? —ATS 🖖 talk 08:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Ronz is still continuing his endless campaign: [156]. So I think the topic ban (page ban) is still on the table. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support page ban, due to continuing WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviors and resistance to collaboration and consensus, despite the continued warnings here and on the article talk page. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  I tried to collaborate with you, but got no response [157]. I collaborated with Serialjoepsycho to follow his recommendation for ending the content dispute [158]via ELN. I collaborated with Ssilvers to get the facts for the ELN discussion clarified, as I'd been repeately accused of being inaccurate about these facts, and previous discussions had stalled [159][160], leading to the complaints by ATS that started this entire discussion here. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'm 100% sure Softlavender knows "I tried to 'collaborate' but you refuse to see things my way" when she sees it ... —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ronz appears to have involved the broader community by starting an RFC at WP:ELN#Grace VanderWaal. Regardless of the above complaint, that seems like a suitable path forward to resolving the content issue. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  ... that was already resolved. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  @ATS: My inclusion of the phrase "involved the wider community" is relevant to your snark. :). WP:CONLEVEL may also make for interesting reading. --Izno (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• oppose Clear attempt to get rid of an opponent by silencing him, clear refusal to consider and apply what policy and guideline prescribe but trying to override with a local consensus. This battleground behaviour is not building an encyclopedia, and rather disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Having just taken the better part of the last hour to read most of that talk page, I have no reservation in agreeing that there is far too much attitude in the vein of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND there--and just too much by way of needlessly entrenched views in general. But that said, it's hardly a product of Ronz's involvement alone, nor do I find that his comments flirt with disruption or incivility with any greater frequency than do some of those of his "opposition" on the TP. In truth, there's an astounding degree of failure to AGF or work towards a reasonable middle-ground solutio--and this on the part of several of the principle editors of that article. There's a great deal of accusatory, rather than collaborative, language on that page, and I'm not convinced that either side (or indeed any side, as this seems to be a multi-directional melee) has truly cornered the market on obstinance.

That said, Ronz, I do believe you have abused reference to WP:FOC repeatedly in those discussions; it is perfectly acceptable for other editors to make broad observations about the positions you have espoused without those observations constituting WP:personal attacks as we understand them on this project. Certainly comments of that nature can be personal attacks under some circumstances, but that was not the case in most of the occasions in which I saw you invoke FOC on that page. So, for example, when Ssilvers called ATS a mediocre editor, that certainly was an unacceptable generalization, but when Ssilvers also said "I think that Ronz misunderstands the purpose of the BLP rules: they are to protect living persons from libel, not to...", that was not in any way inappropriate, given that it was a discussion of particular policy issues, not a blanket evaluation of another editor's value. That said, I found that Ssilvers comments in those threads were significantly more likely to be needlessly abrasive or just combative when compared against those of either Ronz or ATS--but let me be clear that none of the three of you are coming out of this smelling like roses. On a related note, I've seen a fair bit of accusation against Ronz that he is being needlessly pedantic/tendentious by refusing to give over on the issue of the external links. And while it's hard to argue with that assessment, it's also a striking display of a lack of self-awareness by his opponets to not see that this argument cuts both ways; if including the links would represent a trivial change to the article's overall content that "isn't worth" this degree of discord, then the same is true of avoiding the links--and both sides are therefore being equally "petty" by insisting on their relative opinions.

Of course, if there were a firmer local consensus or more dispositive policy wording here, this might be a different story, and we might say that one side or the other was simply refusing to WP:Drop the stick. But the truth of the matter is that WP:ELMINMOFFICIAL gives sufficient license to each of the positions that has been forwarded, and this is definitely an area where reasonable minds can reasonably differ. I think the explicit wording of that guideline slightly favours Ronz's argument, if it can be said to favour any--but then again, the local consensus on that page is slightly against him. As others have pointed out above, local consensus cannot trump community consensus, but I think some of those commenters are misinterpreting how those two levels of process interface: generally speaking, local consensus represents the aggregate opinion of the editors of a given article as to how policy/community consensus applies to a particular content dispute. Rarely are editors arguing to throw out community consensus with local consensus; rather they are geberally endeavouring to apply broader principles of policy/community consensus as they understand them to apply to a given article/dispute. And again, the policy in this instance is vague enough to allow for multiple interpretations in this instance; vague enough that even though I think Ronz has a slightly better grip on the spirit of the policy here, I wouldn't argue to overrule the emerging consensus that seems to run counter to Ronz's interpretation. And yet neither can Ronz be faulted for sticking to his guns until there is some kind of firm consensus and/or official close the content dispute (which hasn't happened as yet because none of the parties to the dispute thought to RfC the issue until now, despite months of back and forth...).

So, my advice is for troutings all around for this silliness, at least as regards the three editors I have mentioned above. I think there are numerous obvious compromise solutions to this dispute, but it seems me that you've all lost sight of the of the middleground here, so RfC this matter and be done with it. But there's been no conduct that I've seen which rises to the level of requiring a sanction, and certainly not a TBAN--though if the parties here don't remember the mandates of WP:AGF and WP:Civility, that could change in a hurry. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-read, considered response. I would argue in my defense only that civility dies in the face of a user who has decided, I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs.

A hypothetical, then: say the RfC ends with no clear consensus. Does that give the user license to, once again, enforce his way? Because he will. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you happen to be in one of the few scenarios where WP:NOCONSENSUS gives some direct guidance: "Discussions sometimes result in no consensus to take or not take an action. What happens next depends on the context: ...In disputes over external links, disputed links are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them." Of course, in that scenario there is no prejudice against continued efforts to generate consensus; if there were even weak consensus then it would arguably be disruptive to launch further threads/RfCs/what-have-you, at least for a time. But when discussion fails to achieve any degree of workable consensus, all sides are technically free to keep revisiting the issue as much as they like until there is some degree of consensus (NOCON only tells us that the links should stay out until consensus is achieved to include them)--but frankly, I would hope that one side or the other would give over here if an RfC fails to gain even weak workable consensus--which doesn't happen all that often with RfCs, but often enough that you may want to prepare for it here, given how divided the current editors are.

But better still would be to come to a compromise solution now, which I would say is arguably what is in the article's best interests in any event. WP:ELMINOFFICIAL has a worthwhile aim in keeping our content consistent with encyclopedic tone and away from the issues proscribed in WP:NOTDIR; one need not even point to promotional concerns for this to still be a good idea. Then again, there is a WP:IAR-esque argument that been forwarded here with regard to the utility of a few extra links. I usually don't use those kinds of arguments in policy discussions myself, because I feel like IAR is too broad and amenable to creating conflicts with consensus where idiosyncratic approaches "feel right"--unless everyone is really on the same page that an exception should be made. That said, the utility argument has at least a little traction here. Even so, my best guess is that most editors, responding to an RfC notice and refreshing themselves on the wording of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL will probably come down on Ronz's side (if they are pressed to make a call as they are in an RfC) because of the wording of the second paragraph of that section of the EL policy. But that's just an educated guess. You can always feel free to shoot for the hard six--but it may not come out the way you are hoping, and why even try when there are surely reasonable middle-ground solutions here which will do in a pinch?

In any event, I would caution against lapsing into the kind of assumptions we are all prone to when disputes drag on for a bit; you think that Ronz is operating from a place of narcissism and/or stubbornness ("I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs."), but it may very well be that he is proceeding out of a sense of obligation ("I am going to do what is right for the article, at all reasonable cost."). In any event, I definitely don't see any conduct which as yet represents the kind of longterm disruption or abuse of process which is necessary to even contemplate a TBAN. Rather I just see a group of editors who have gone to the mat over a small content issue for far too long without thinking to RfC (or otherwise formally draw) the community in to resolve the matter, and have simultaneously (some would say consequently) drifted farther and farther from WP:AGF. Snow ^{let's rap} 20:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there are surely reasonable middle-ground solutions here. If only. If only ... —ATS 🖖 talk 00:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it seems like an uphill battle for you that is unlikely to result in satisfactory compromise, you are certainly within your sphere to make that call. But if I were pressed to make a prediction, I'd probably bet on Ronz's interpretation prevailing at RfC. Or further deadlock. Neither of which results in the links being included. It might be worth giving up some of the links to preserve others. Besides, the article might benefit from this balanced approach. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: ATS's characterization of Ronz's behavior as "I. Am. Going. To. Get. My. Way. At. All. Costs." is entirely accurate, and a behavior Ronz has demonstrated on multiple other occasions on multiple other articles, and one he has in fact been blocked for: [161]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak to that; I don't have any experience with Ronz beyond reviewing the talk page now in question and this thread. It may well be a pattern with this user. But that said, with regard to the threads presently in question on that talk page, I haven't seen anything that crosses the line into disruption, tendentiousness, or abuse of process. Yeah, Ronz has certainly been tenacious over a period of weeks in advocating for their position, but so have other editors on that page. The problem was not so much that no one would back down, though that certainly was the case--it's that no one until recently thought to seek broader community input in order to bring in new perspectives and ease the deadlock. At least, that's how it looks to me. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to the block of 5 years ago, or the one of 10 years ago? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you can tell which one by looking at the rationales, and it is a pattern he has repeated through the years right up to today. Softlavender (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If this were ArbCom (and I wouldn't be surprised if a case does eventually get filed on this repeated pattern of over-the-top extensively disruptive non-collaboration), I'd take the time to retrieve the necessary evidence, but since this isn't ArbCom the case at hand is evidence, and egregious evidence. And since most of your last 3,000 edits have consisted of automated removal of social-networking sites from ELs, I think you may be somewhat biased here and failing to review the evidence of extended and highly disruptive battleground behavior in the face of consensus. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus, codified in WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:ELPEREN (as well that it is codified in the usage instructions on several templates like {{twitter}}, {{facebook}}, {{google+}}, {{blogger}}), {{LinkedIn_URL}}, the to-be-deleted {{official blog}} (see deleted doc) that we minimize the number of external links and only link to multiple official sites in very exceptional cases. That same conclusion was also drawn by other editors on my talkpage after I have removed many official social networking sites where official sites were already listed, and it was drawn in the AN/I thread that was started because of complaints of removal. Many of these social networking sites, especially in addition to the official site, do not merit inclusion. You name 3000 removals, most of those still stand (of this set of 49 removals only one slipped back in (none reverted)). And those removals have been rather conservative (I have skipped 80% of the pages, many of these would not have been skipped if I would have been less careful (though slower) .. ). I have seen very few reasoned, appropriate, reversions on my edits, and I have gotten a number of thanks for the removals as well. I think that shows what your 'face of consensus' says - additional social networking sites, barring very few exceptions, are discouraged. This is just one of those examples which fails our inclusion standards as determined by long standing consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)(several edits to this comment by myself --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC))

And seen that there are several people saying that these links do not belong, does, IMHO, show that we do not have consensus about the inclusion of these links .. to me that show how wrong Ronz appears to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not personally disagreeing with your recent 3,000 edits (nor did I disagree with them by referencing them), I merely said that I think your recent activity in this similar area may cause you to be somewhat biased here and cause you to fail to actually review the specific evidence of very extended and highly disruptive battleground behavior in this case, and the specific details and specific merits thereof. Softlavender (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: My apologies, I misunderstood the intent of that remark.

First, I would have, blindly, removed these social network sites on these pages as well (and am still considering, there is obvious no consensus for inclusion). My script would have cleared these as well. User Ronz is, I think, similarly to me quite harsh in deletion of such superfluous links if they do not have significant merit. My 3000-ish removals mainly stand, though some vocal editors found the need to shout loud that these removals were inappropriate (and I am, albeit slower, still doing the same). I feel that here the same things happen. I was one of the editors that a couple of months ago adviced against inclusion on this page, still they return. Still there is no consensus for inclusion. Still some editors think that they can do whatever they want in the face of consensus (or lack thereof). I still think that Ronz has policy, guideline, common sense and common use behind him in this removal, and although it may be wise for him to back of, I am not convinced that he is the one that turned this into a battleground.

This specific case has now turned into a situation where policy, guideline etc. suggest the removal of these links on this page, several editors have suggested that these links do not belong here, but I am sure that you know what will happen if another editor removes these links... and that has nothing to do with Ronz. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• The article was created on 14 September 2016. Since then, Ronz has edited the talk page 80 times, my talk 13 times, and has made lots of other edits on other pages—all part of a mission to remove a couple of external links from Grace VanderWaal. In addition, Ronz has a 900-word manifesto at a user subpage. The dedication would be admirable if it were directed at a worthwhile cause. Unfortunately the approach involves one-way communication—Ronz announces the rules and offers "WP:FOC" in response to points raised. Even if removing a couple of external links was "correct", the approach is damaging to the project and should be strongly resisted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the face of it, many of the edits complained of are exactly correct (e.g. removing cases where the text says "X did Y on YouTube, source, X doing Y on YouTube"). This kind of self-sourced promotional crap is a plague on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Funny business with some articles

While reviewing something else I noticed an interesting edit pattern. It seems like there exist at least two articles where many different accounts and IPs exclusively edit. It appears to be that these are throwaway accounts.

This alone is of course not the problem here but I will document several of these accounts and their odd edit pattern below. By no means is this exhaustive evidence.

Evalueserve (article marked with {{advert}}

1. Saran.kondapaturi (talk · contribs) - 6 edits on ~18:50, 8 July 2016
2. Iulia.rotaru (talk · contribs) - sporadic 22 edits between 21 July 2015 and 24 November 2016
3. Alexradavoi (talk · contribs) - single edit on 15 May 2015
4. 193.226.164.171 (talk · contribs) - 8 edits on 2 September 2015
5. Inkuku (talk · contribs) - sporadic 13 edits between 26 November 2010 and 26 August 2015 + two edits to Uslar
6. Ajitreddy (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 9 March 2013 + two edits to Manik Sarkar
7. Fabian baeza (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 28 August 2013
8. Anastasia moga (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 6 November 2012 + 3 other edits relating to the article [162] [163] [164] which implies an employee is making these edits.
9. IAash275 (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 17 March 2012
10. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 July 2007 + 3 edits on own userpage (the one below) + this one edit [165] which is a strange post to say the least

User:Madhesia Userpage edited by a large number of ips and usernames for some reason. There is some overlap with Evalueserve.

1. Pradip Kumar maddhesiya (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 23 September 2016 to User:Madhesia
2. 126.229.146.219 (talk · contribs) - 2 edits on 21 September 2015 to User:Madhesia
3. Akashforce (talk · contribs) - 1 edit on 16 March 2015 to User:Madhesia + several edits to User:117.192.24.57/sandbox earlier which was blanked by 203.200.48.18 (talk · contribs) whom edits a wide range of topics with few edits. 117.192.24.57 (talk · contribs) has no contribution EVER themselves despite having a sandbox.
4. Arvind.8405 (talk · contribs) - 3 edits on 9 January 2015 to User:Madhesia + 2 other edits to Kandu
5. 14.102.116.162 (talk · contribs) - 9 edits on 2 November 2014 to User:Madhesia as well as several topics including significant contribution to P. C. Alexander, Geevarghese Ivanios and Joshua Mar Ignathios
6. Madhesiyacontact (talk · contribs) - 16 edits between 16 and 25 January 2014 to User:Madhesia + one edit to User talk:Madhesia [166]
7. 122.161.122.65 (talk · contribs) - 7 edits on 8 November 2013 to User:Madhesia + one edit to Risotto
8. Madhesia (talk · contribs) - 3 edits between 16-24 July 2007 + 1 edit to Evalueserve (above) + 1 more (as previously discussed)

I suspect these are single purpose throwaway accounts either by a PR firm or employees of a certain company editing with severe COI. It feels like a poorly coordinated marketing attempt at a glance to me. What I find most strange is how most of these accounts exclusively edit one and only one article with one of them editing for years but making only few edits and only to one article. There needs to be further scrutiny IMHO before an action is taken.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with White Cat's Analysis. From my own review I concur most likely outcome is it is probably some sort of PR firm. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

My guess is that each of the different accounts represents an individual in the firm assigned to Evaluserve PR at some point, and the reason they keep switching so fast is because they keep getting reassigned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Any suggestions on how to go forward? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 05:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I would request a CU on the named accounts as soon as there's enough recent usernames for a comparison. (CUs generally won't out IPs barring severe, systemic abuse, which I'm not seeing here, and CU data is generally only kept for a few months as far as I am aware, so most of the above are too stale for CUs to check.) What should be done next depends on what the CU findings say. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree a CU is needed to look into these accounts and verify they are connected. Hopefully they'll be able to figure out the connection.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the dates of activity all the data would be stale at this point. Unfortunately it looks like we are a day late and a dollar short for a check user. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this does not mean we are without option. It should be an LTA case probably. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 14:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: @Jéské Couriano: Bump! -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The only article that was mentioned here has been deleted a week ago. Unless there are other articles involved, I'm not sure what is being requested here. It might be better to post this at WP:COIN, and also provide and complete the editor interaction tool [167] (with all of the accounts) for them so they can see any crossover. Since most of the accounts have stopped editing eons ago, I don't think there's much to be done except possibly salt the deleted article if need be. Softlavender (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: My worry here is to identify if there are other accounts editing in this manner. Linked ones may be DOA but this group was certainly active recently. We need to also identify the existing damage. I am unsure how editorinteract will be veru useful because it seems like each user account is for the most part used as a throw away account per client. Key page seemingly is User:Madhesia but there maybe others. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations

User:Mahussain06 has been copying and pasting copyrighted material again after previously being blocked for doing the exact same thing before. An example is this edit of copying the exact sentence "DeGale scored a flash knockdown in round 1 when he knocked Jack down with a left hand to the head." from here. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the inconvenience, this was since rectified but the changes didn't seem to have been saved, causing you to believe copyright violation. I had no intention of blatant copyrighting here. I still stand firm with the appeal when I was first blocked and have made significant changes with the way I edit. This was a human error, I thank you for pointing this out and hope this is down as a misunderstanding. Thank you.Mahussain06 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing edit war at Teairra Marí and related articles

There's an edit war going on at the bio of musician Teairra Marí, as well various of her releases like Make Her Feel Good and Teairra Marí discography. The main participants are User:TheBigProject and User:JJMC89. Both participants have breached 3RR limits. I see no relevant article talk page discussion. JJMC89 claims exemption from 3RR for reverting the sock of a banned user, but the relevant SPI hasn't been resolved yet. The article is a BLP horroshow in either version, and the "Legal issues" section, and perhaps others, incorporates cut-and-pasted/COPYVIO text. But nobody's going to get involved in cleanup so long as the article remains a free fire zone. This isn't going to stop on its own; admin action is necessary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I blocked TheBigProject as a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

‎Truth,2

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

---

‎Truth,2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Another brand new user showing up in the EE topic and making provocative edits and edit-warring. I typically block such accounts on sight per WP:NOTTHERE, but I prefer to be this one blocked by someone else since it might look (though it is not actually true) that I am blocking an opponent. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a new aspect: From a constitutional point of view, however, Nikita S. Khrushchev broke the Constitution of the Russian Federation (RSFSR), which committed the territorial integrity of the fatherland. The process has never been properly investigated.

"Documents from the archives opened in 1992 also showed that the decision was also illegal in other respects. Neither had the Supreme Soviet in Moscow voted on the subject, nor the one in Kiev, but, what was inadmissible, only their presidencies. Almost half of the members of these committees were missing, which must be understood as a demonstrative vote against this arbitrary decision and meant, that they were not formally legitimized. Protest also came from the First Secretary of the Communist Party in Crimea, Pavel Titov, who had been cited to Moscow to receive the notification of the change of ownership. He was then removed and replaced by Ukrainian Dmytro Polianski."    The external occasion for this generous "gift" of Moscow to Kiev was the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Peresyaslav.

1. There was a revert without any reason and without notice in the talk page. (User Ymblanter) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

2. There was a revert with the wrong allegation: origin research. No answer at talk page

I would be glad if there were real contributions to the subject.Truth,2 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

those who want to contribute to the subject do not show up in highly controvercial articles and with their first edit in the project do not add original research, and subsequently do not start edit-warring. I am sure you know that Azarov is not an academic researcher but a highly involved person who is on the US and EU sanctions lists. Even if you do not know, you should have noticed that the mayerial you attempted to add contradicts to everything else in the article--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Indeed, some of these new accounts pretend engaging in discussions. So far it was not helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What you wrote about Asarow concerns political reasons not scientific. "the mayerial you attempted to add contradicts to everything else in the article": No, the points are missing in the article, and this is the reason why I added it. The 100 %-votes were of course not the reality. They were typic for the Communists at that time.

And what happened before is still missing!

- I expected that somebody may take a closer look to the Soviet constitution of that time.

- How should this decision made legally.

- What happened in reality?

- Why came a new First Secretary of the Communist Party in Crimea? etc.Truth,2 (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm indefinitely blocking. EE edit warriors with tenuous command of English are things we have in spades, so no reason to let this fester further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Range block request for IP disruption

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

---

I've been dealing with an IP address for quite some time now. They will usually go to a former IP of there's talk page and change my signature to something obscene. This has been going on for some time now and I was wondering if a range block could be done to stop this IP from doing this, if one is warranted in the first place. Not notifying this user since they're an IP hopper. IP's include the following:

• 69.149.70.90 (contributions)
  
• 69.149.67.156 (contributions)
  
• 69.149.68.5 (contributions)
  
• 69.149.70.241 (contributions)
  
• 69.149.66.239 (contributions)
  
• 69.149.67.174 (contributions)
  

And a whole lot more. Contributions (and the edits they have made) are listed above as well. Thank you. JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That is a fairly wide range of IPs to block and there are plenty of constructive edits from the range as well. Unfortunately, the collateral damage is probably too much to permit a range block that would take care of the problem. Perhaps an edit filter could be requested at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested? -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. I can try there next. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I made a request for an edit filter. Since it's over there now, I guess this section can be closed. JudgeRM (talk to me) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:XavierGreen at Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War

User:XavierGreen is repeatedly trying to insert unsourced or improperly cited material in the middle of a GA review [168] [169] [170]. While I have reasons to believe this timing is no mere coincidence, I had exhausted the communication channels with him. Maybe someone can be more persuasive than me as how being disruptive for the sake of it isn't nice. Bertdrunk (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I had previously voiced my opinion in the GA review, user:Bertdrunk has never addressed my concerns with the article and its bias towards what is now tantamount to an Amero-centric point of view in regards to the scope of the article. Prior to any edits that user:Bertdrunk had made to the page, an editor had made some NPOV edits removing virtually all reference to the Eurpean, Caribbean, and Indian Ocean naval campaigns of the war. See for example here [[171]], as an example of some of the details of the various campaigns of the war that have since been removed. I merely restored some of this information to the article. I have not broken 3RR. I have for some time been attempting to fix various POV edits made to Revolutionary War naval battle articles by a banned sockpuppet user named User:SuffrenXXI, who interestingly enough was blocked a few months before User:Bertdrunk created his account. There also were and have been several IP address's reverting several of my own edits.XavierGreen (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes man, it's all a big conspiracy to preclude you from stat your opinions as facts. At least you upgraded communication from cryptic edit summaries. Just keep off from being disruptive to derail a ga review and I don't give a damn whatever you do or don't do. Bertdrunk (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think any administrative action is needed here. To @XavierGreen:, I would just say to be mindful of the fact that this article is in the middle of a GA review, so if you can add content that is well sourced and improves the article, I think that is good. To @Bertdrunk:, I empathize with the feeling of a promoted content nomination ostensibly being derailed (it's happened to me once or twice), but I think ultimately you should work to collaborate if the content being added is something that should be in the article, and discuss on the talk page if you think it's not. Seeking a third opinion is always an option. A reminder to all editors to contribute in good faith and that we are all here for the same reason. Happy editing to you both. Go Phightins! 15:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits were actually in response to user:Bertdrunk's own statement in the GA review where he had stated that such information regarding the campaigns in question were never in the article. I had previously handled a peer view of the same article pointing out the same deficencies in it.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To my opinion Bertdrunk is acting rather harsh but on the other hand the edits of XavierGreen were unsourced and poorly written. So, get a set of Stratego and battle it out there. In the mean time it might be a good idea to tweak the scope of Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War so that it only includes present day US-waters and create a second article of naval affairs outside these waters. The Banner talk 15:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The war was one of a global scale, with naval units frequently moving between theaters as they do in most wars. An article titled Naval battles of the American Revolutionary War would be expected to cover all areas of that topic and especially the major naval battles of the war, most of which were in Europe and the Carribean.XavierGreen (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Again i would like to state that i believe user:Bertdrunk is a banned sockpuppet editor, his account history began right after the ban of this user [[172]], who edited the same pages under a variety of different confirmed sockpuppet accounts as you can see here [[173]]XavierGreen (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The policy on calling editors sockpuppets is "put up or shut up." If you feel someone is a sockpuppet, then open a WP:SPI case. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty, i'll open up a case later today. I've never done it before so i'll have to read through the instructions.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism of comics articles by 107.77.*.*

This anon editor has been persistently vandalizing articles for many weeks, primarily making fraudulent claims about co-creating Spawn (comics),[174] and implicitly disparaging actual creator Todd McFarlane and certain other comics creators by referring readers to a web forum he frequents for details.[175] (I'm an occasional participant in that forum, and I've attempted to engage him there about this, with incoherent responses.) He evades page protections by targeting additional articles, and evades blocks by changing IP addresses, so far including 107.77.194.22, 107.77.203.11, 107.77.203.4, 107.77.204.229 (multiple warnings given on this one), 107.77.204.153, 107.77.204.185, 107.77.203.81, 107.77.203.210, 107.77.203.4 –Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gamingforfun365

So this all started when Gamingforfun365 nominated Crispy Gamer for FAC. I nominated the article for GAN and it passed. It was passed by Gamingforfun365 himself and I was very much bothered by this since I didn't intend to nominate it for FAC as I believed it didn't meet the criteria for a Featured Article. It eventually was closed due to Gaming not being a major contributor of the article. But at one point he says "I am actually having fun from how lousy this discussion is going". I brought it up to him on his talk page, where he eventually deleted it.

It gets really complicated as in one thread on the Video games project, which was originally titled "Crispy Gamer now FAC", where he announced that he didn't do any fact-checking in his GAN reviews. Also making remarks on my talk page, also bringing up the fact-checking issue and the repeated commenting he makes. I ask Gamingforfun365 three times to stop posting on my talk page and he ignores it twice.

Then there is this thread, originally titled "Gamingforfun365 quits as a GAN reviewer". I overall find his comments to be non-productive and disruptive. I honestly don't know what to do since this whole drama is complicated to explain the best one can. I just think there needs to be an uninvolved administrator to help out with the issues. GamerPro64 05:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally we expect some effort to resolve the situation before reporting here. Anyway Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas may be applicable. If Gamingforfun365 passed a bunch of GAs without actually doing the checks required, then they can all be delisted. It sounds like someone is not taking things very seriously. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the original poster does have a right to bring this issue up to the ANI. In fact, I am thinking about either posting to that closed thread and saying that I apologize for being closed-minded and that I in fact am confirmed as a minor editor or deleting that thread and starting a new one that states that I apologize for not listening and that I in fact am only a minor. Is that all right? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 17:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I closed out the discussion at the WikiProject level so we could stop with these stupid discussions. I don't see any actual issues persisting here if you'd both just stop self-indulgent discussions about yourselves. Go out and edit some different articles, away from one another. Problem solved. Sergecross73 msg me 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Already deleted now. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 18:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Am I not supposed to delete even embarrassing and disruptive threads that I have made? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 18:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a project page, not your talk page. You can't unilaterally decide to blank a discussion and other editors comments because you didn't like them. It should be archived. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As you've been informed already, archiving is preferred. I've archived them for you though, as one was closed and one was stale for about a week. Sergecross73 msg me 19:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

His deletionist tendencies for discussions showing him in a bad light is very much troublesome. Trying to delete threads that usually show him to be doing things wrong and never learning from his mistakes. GamerPro64 19:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, I still seem confused as to whether I really do WP:OWN the threads that I have made. I tend to think that I may delete my threads just because I am their original poster, and, while I do learn from my mistakes, I am uncomfortable with sharing them with others (unless it is a good time). Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should take a break from posting in the talk pages about video games. In other words, a topic ban on the English Wikipedia may do. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Youre free to delete discussions on your talk page, but elsewhere, unless it's blatantly bad (personal attacks, WP:BLP violations, WP:NOTAFORUM violations), you shouldn't be deleting discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Before I go to bed, I have some things to say:

As for the "how lousy" comment, although I do admit that it does hint that I was being disruptive on purpose, what I was trying to say is that it was distracting me from actually improving the encyclopedia. I am sorry for my word choice. If I really had enjoyed being disruptive, I would not have posted in the first place. As for trying to badge an article with an FA star, I guess that, as I have intense focus on a limited number of subjects (something that I have always been born with as a result of autism), I care far more about trying to make a few articles become top-quality than about making many articles become decently written, and Crispy Gamer was (and still is by the time of this post) one of them. As for listening to others, I guess that I could stand receiving constructive criticism as long as they are not emphasized. As for "owning" the threads that I have made, I would definitely obey if I were told by an administrator this: "Keep or archive threads that you have made on talk pages other than your user talk page, or I will block you for one week."; that last part right there would definitely make me stop. Lastly, I would like to apologize for the possible disruption, for I seem to have focused more upon making a few articles become badged with a star than upon making so many articles decently written, but that is my preference of editing: to make top-quality content and not bringing low-quality articles to just mid-quality. Once again, I apologize. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

"I don't see any actual issues persisting here if you'd both just stop self-indulgent discussions about yourselves." GamerPro64, I will take 100% of the blame, as it is not your fault and I am the villain, and if it really is better for me to take a break from the English Wikipedia, I would accept receiving a block. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe either of you have handled this well. This didn't require an ANI case, (it almost certainly will be closed something to the capacity of "not actionable, but please both of you stop these discussions") and you shouldn't need to announce your every new intention, or need a block to motivate yourself to change. Stop talking about yourselves and each and just go edit somewhere uncontentious away from each other. Sergecross73 msg me 23:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

66.169.147.29

Hello, sorry for bugging you guys, but it's look the guy behind this IP address (who been blocked a few days ago) is making the same disruptive edits as before, but using another IP address, he made these edits here in the Views article just recently. You can see the edits look very similar as the other IP, such as unnecessary linking phases and bad grammar. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, TheAmazingPeanuts. In looking strictly at the diff you showed (which shows all 16 revisions at once), some of the changes he or she made do seem to improve the syntax of the article. While I can't speak for all of them, I think these can probably be addressed through the normal editing process. Insofar as it may be the same IP as the one recently blocked, I'd advise assuming good faith, and if disruption continues, report either back here or (if it is vandalism) to WP:AIV. Let me know if I'm missing something; nothing here seemed malicious. Thanks, Go Phightins! 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Yes, some of the edits may help improve the article, but however these IPs unnecessary linking phrases like this and unnecessary changing up bits of text, like in this article here. These kind of edits have been reverted by several other editors, such as Koala15, Kellymoat and Nickag989, Nickag989 has left a message on one of the IPs talk page about WP:MoS, but whoever it is ignored the message and keep continue making the same disruptive edits to Wikipedia, I asked other editors who work on articles based on albums about these edits, editors like Ss112 and Dan56 agreed that these edits are unnecessary and doesn't help improve the article at all, it only make it hard to read for some, and don't follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, well if the disruptive editing from this new IP continues, I suggest again trying to engage with respect to the MOS, and if that proves fruitless, you can report here or potentially at AIV. Go Phightins! 00:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Well I think it would be pointless to report the matter at AIV because it for vandalism, mostly the edits are aren't that bad, but however most of the edits are unnecessary and it does not make an improvement to the article. I keep an eye for more disruptive editing from this IP, and I will report the issue again if this keep happening. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack by 178.148.145.64

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.

---

I was on Huggle, reverting vandalism, and I had reverted this IPs edit: [176], and then he proceeded to call me an "anti-semite" on my talk page: [177] His edit to Jewish Bolshevism was clearly vandalism. Even the abuse filter picked it up as vandalism.

Notified: [178] Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that it's the IP who's the anti-Semite. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours for vandalism. Pretty obvious trolling/vandalism going on with their edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 21:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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

168.216.12.154 -- deliberately malicious 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.

---

Noted suspicious date in Martha's Vineyard Sign Language, noted edit by 168.216.12.154 (Contributions) was actively malicious. Note that all contributions by that author are malicious graffiti. Have manually reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.73.82 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

All of those edits were from nearly a month ago. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Urgent

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

---

Requesting urgent administrator action. Not notifying subject per DENY. Patient Zero^talk 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked. Help moving pages back would be appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Samwalton9, but I can't rollback the edits he's made. It's saying the most recent revision was by him and that's why I can't RB, and I've got a "yellow" new messages notification, but not a "red icon on bell" one, if you get what I mean. I can only explain them simply. Patient Zero^talk 11:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Working on it. Better for an admin to do it anyway so that we can not add a redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for your help today. Patient Zero^talk 11:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

All cleaned up, as far as I can see. Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Just Lesser London and its talk page, plus the user talk page created due to CSD notifications. Once again, thanks for your help. Patient Zero^talk 11:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, done. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Advertising illegal activity

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

---

As seen on User talk:Guererro and The Knights Of The Eternal State United Cartel the user in question is advertising a paramilitary militia involved in organized crime. He's repeatedly recreating it, and editing other pages to put references in to his group. JamesG5 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

He also removed the speedy-deletion tag. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted and blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Bobbyjoe11111

The following discussion is closed. 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 (IMHO) blatant case of vandalism-only account thay likes to play with digits into infoboxes. User has 5 edits. First two edits on Dec 20, 2016 (1st and 2nd) should like normal (a self-revert), but the third (3 minutes after) is a clear vandalism (rollbacked). 20 days after, on January 11, he comes back on the page Charlotte Hornets adding this and this (both edits rollbacked). Instead to wait for eventual further vandalisms, is IMHO better to close the case as soon as possible. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The place to report vandalism would be WP:AIV, but in this case there have been no further edits since the user was given a first warning for vandalism, so your later warning was inappropriate and a request for a block would be unsuccessful. Please read WP:Vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely for the edits that have been made. It's clear that this user is not here to contribute positively to the project. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding by User:Sportsfan 1234

Last night I removed a {{prod}} tag from 2014 Street Child World Cup. This morning, I wake up to find three AfDs of stubs I wrote, by User:Sportsfan 1234 in retaliation for my having removed the {{prod}} tag. As my own talkpage is an answering machine, I cleared those messages. Within minutes User:Sportsfan 1234 popped up again accusing me of disruptive editing. I cleared it off with language that, in full disclosure, I am well-aware may WP:BOOMERANG me and which violates WP:CIVIL but does not violate WP:NPA. Within minutes User:Sportsfan 1234 popped up again, again knowing that he is not welcome on my talkpage.

Diffs

• [179] 12:12, January 14, 2017 replacing the prod tag I removed. Policy would dictate AfDing rather than retagging.
• mine [180]21:40, January 14, 2017 my re-removal of the tag per template "If this template is removed, do not replace it."
• [181] 13:27, January 14, 2017 his very next edit was the first of 3 retaliatory AFDs
• [182] 13:30, January 14, 2017 3 minutes later, the second of 3 retaliatory AFDs
• [183] 13:32, January 14, 2017 2 minutes later, the third of 3 retaliatory AFDs
• [184] 21:44, January 14, 2017 templating me for "Disruptive editing" when I had clearly stated my policy-based reason for removing the prod tag the second time, in my edit summary
• mine [185] 21:46, January 14, 2017 very clearly delineating that his comments are unwanted on my talkpage, with language that I am well-aware may WP:BOOMERANG me and which violates WP:CIVIL but does not violate WP:NPA
• [186] 21:49, January 14, 2017 templating me for "Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries.", by this point clearly Wikihounding me, any rational editor would have left it alone by now, I certainly would have. My summary was neither inaccurate, nor by that time inappropriate.
• mine [187] my explaining that my previous summary does not violate WP:NPA

I seek 2 things here-I seek a contact ban for User:Sportsfan 1234 from contacting me, and for the retaliatory AFDs to be voided. Whether the articles should be AfDd should be left to an uninvolved party.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all you shouldn't be removing prod tags without using an edit summary or fixing the issue at hand. Second of all, you can see my recent edit history has been to propose articles (a lot of them actually) for deletion. It is inappropriate to tell someone to f off in an edit summary. If anything you should be reprimanded for civility issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Also of note, this user can be accused of hounding as well, after I had voted to delete an article he started [[188] is when the chain above began. For a user who has limited to almost non-existent sport editing the removal of the speedy deletion template without a justified reason to me seems like this user went through my edits to target my edits. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:PROD, "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." No edit summary or other edit is required. Jacknstock (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: To be clear, are you saying it is a coincidence that you nominated these three articles for deletion straight after the "Street World Cup" PROD tag was removed? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Sportsfan 1234: Please read WP:PROD and highlight where it says that a PROD nomination may not be removed without leaving an edit summary or fixing any underlying issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'd just point out that the two lines of prose (the rest is sports results) in the 2014 Street Child World Cup article are in fact a copyright violation to boot. Whilst no-one is required to explain the removal of a PROD, from an experienced editor I would at least expect at least an edit-summary, especially for an article as poor as that one. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@User:Euryalus I'd say yes, because one article led to another (I usually open 20+ articles at the same time that are similar in nature to gauge their notability). @User:Boing! said Zebedee, there might not be a specific line saying that, but you would expect an experienced editor to make at least an edit summary, especially considering User:Black Kite's comments. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, an edit summary is good, but that is very different from your false assertion that "you shouldn't be removing prod tags without using an edit summary or fixing the issue at hand". And if you did not understand why the PROD was removed, all you had to do was ask. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Black Kite: My very next edit [189] was on the article's talkpage, it was clear to anyone who looked that I was not (and historically am not) a drive-by tagger. Now, the copyright violation is something else, but that is not why we are here, wasn't stated in the prod tag, and is not now a tag on the article. Happy to fix that up now.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Fixed that copyvio, please have a look.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Sportsfan 1234 have been in at wp:AN for a wp:PROD related reason less than a moth ago (archived: wp:AN/Mass_PRODing). Also, they have made a lot of deletion nominations since late December (see: contributions - page creations on WP namespace). Most of these are mass nominations themselves, mostly of the kind of "<athletes> in <team> at <competition> in <year>". If the articles created by Kintetsubuffalo's were of that kind, I would bet it was a coincidence, yet this articles are all related to something different, girl/boyscouts, so... I don't know. A couple of things I do know. or believe to know: First, if someone removes a PROD tag, do not revert, instead either give up or go to AfD - a summary is not mandatory (but should have been provided, as for any edit, more so in this cases); second, foul language does not help. Ever. I know. I've been on both sides of it. But if it is only once in a loooooong while, we better let it go, almost everyone gets heated up once in a while. That is, if both users cool of and disengage, I see no reason to take any action. As a side note, and though I tend to agree that most of the sports articles mass nominated for deletion are probably better of deleted than not, I whish Sportsfan 1234 would make less of them - or proceed to updating the natability criteria based on these - as this is closing in on disruptive. Nabla (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) PS: corrected above: ANI to AN, and date. Nabla (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not as cut-and-dried as "if both users cool off and disengage", and there is indeed reason to take action. None of my edits created retaliatory and time-wasting AfDs. Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234. "Cooling off" does not address that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

When one editor finds that some other editor has created one article of dubious notability and dubious copyright status, it is completely normal for the first editor to look through the contributions of the second looking for more of the same. In no way is this an inappropriate instance of hounding, and it is completely legitimate for Sportsfan to have AfD'd these articles. Kintetsubuffalo, please stop your dubious wikilawyering in an attempt to save your dubious contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first claim is factual-when finding a questionable article it is not uncommon to check other works by the same author. But given that several editors above do not believe it's a coincidence, nor do I, that he would have to search through my 170,000 edits and pick one from 15 October 2016, 25 October 2016, and 2 November 2016, about a religious Scout org, a national Scout org, and a Scout recognition org, which in no way follows his editing pattern, right on the heels of me making an edit he didn't like, I'm gonna go ahead and say no to your snarky "please". Two admins, by the way, jumped in and defended those so-called "dubious contributions" in the AfDs before I even saw them [190], [191], so I think we can dispense with your snide comment, which itself is unbecoming an admin.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

They're much less far down the list if one looks only at page creations in article space that are not redirects. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And the "coincidental" timing? Also, regarding your mischaracterization "in an attempt to save your dubious contributions", I clearly stated above, from the beginning "Whether the articles should be AfDd should be left to an uninvolved party." Do you have a dog in this fight?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rangeblock request for 46.233.112.*

I am requesting an admin consider a rangeblock for 46.233.112.* (I think that's the same as 46.233.122.0/24). There's bit repeated disruption by this range on cartoon and television related articles since December. (See edits in this range since 01 December 2016 here). This behavior is similar to a previous IP hopper who I'd been tracking as long term abuse (see User:EvergreenFir/socks#British). IPs in this range have also been editing on User:FestonAero/sandbox, though it's unclear to me if the user is the same as the IPs. Below is a table of the recent IPs within the range.

IP address	Date	Number edits	Geolocation	Notes
46.233.112.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20 December 2016	1 edits	UK	Targeting List of Peppa Pig episodes
46.233.112.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20 December 2016	2 edits	UK	Targeting List of Peppa Pig episodes
46.233.112.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20 December 2016	1 edits	UK	Targeting List of Peppa Pig episodes
46.233.112.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20 December 2016	2 edits	UK	Targeting List of Peppa Pig episodes
46.233.112.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	12 December 2016	10 edits	UK	Targeting List of Peppa Pig episodes
46.233.112.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	4 January 2017	9 edits	UK
46.233.112.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	5 January 2017	10 edits	UK
46.233.112.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	6 & 12 January 2017	2 edits	UK
46.233.112.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	20 December 2016 & 13 January 2017	15 edits	UK
46.233.112.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	14 January 2017	4 edits	UK	Targeting List of Bob the Builder episodes
46.233.112.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	14 January 2017	3 edits	UK	Targeting List of Bob the Builder episodes
46.233.112.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)	14 January 2017	6 edits	UK	Targeting List of Bob the Builder episodes and List of Bob the Builder episodes

EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The sandbox edits are probably just the registered user editing logged out accidentally. It happens. I see other non-vandal edits on this range, too – mostly copy edits. Maybe page protection would be a viable alternative? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Which ever folks are more comfortable with. Just noticed a pattern of abuse over a month from a narrow range so thought I'd ask. Page protection works too. I'll keep an eye on the range of that's the case to make sure they don't expand to other pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly tempting to do a range block, but there are enough constructive edits that they give me pause. Maybe someone else will chime in and say that I'm being too cautious. I'm obviously not an expert on this stuff; I've only been an admin for 10 days. But, anyway, thanks for spotting and combating this vandalism; it's a mostly thankless job. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: would you kindly semi protect the pages the IPS are targeting? The vandalism is continuing. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Peppa Pig episodes was already protected by Ferret for a month. I protected List of Bob the Builder episodes for a week. Are there others that need protection? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Good for now. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Hkliinfinityon9 and userpage vandalism

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

---

Today Hkliinfinityon9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) vandalized User:WarMachineWildThing twice [192][193] and was warned by Dane and myself; I warned that they would be reported if they continued. They followed up with this edit, pasting my user page onto theirs. WarMachineWildThing has been a frequent target of The abominable Wiki troll's sockpuppets, which caused his page to be protected, but I don't think this account is connected to him.LM2000 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning - feel free to ping me directly if they continue -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Samtar their at it again, they removed your warning and copied LMs user page to their own again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Also removed this thread [194], thanks Arkhaminsanity for restoring it. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help! I'll keep a weather eye out on this editor Arkhaminsanity (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User appears to be going on a crusade against another editor

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

---

I wanted to ask the community to take a look at Rahul Dhanwani (talk · contribs), particularly after this edit where he stated "RichardHarris22 thinks that he is superior than every other Wikipedia user. Good job in removing his edit. Keep Going." This appears to be spill-over from a content dispute at Lionel Messi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Rahul Dhanwani needs to explain this edit. I don't see any purpose to it, other than to annoy RichardHarris22. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently I've been contacted to comment. Take a look at Rahul's edits on the Messi article. Grammar issues, excessive detail (listing every single goal), not naming the team correctly (Ath??), it's a mess. I kept the crux of their edit. I messaged Rahul to tell them their edit was fine but it needed trimming and the grammar needed tidying up. Now Rahul has evidently ignored this. The Messi article is rated GA, it won't stay that way with edits like this. It's disappointing no one else has intervened. RichardHarris22 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Scorpion293 and unconfessed paid advertising

Unless anyone else has concerns, I think we're good now that the user is CU-confirmed and banned and articles shall be removed. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

---

Scorpion293 (talk · contribs)

I had been watching this user recently because of some curiously peculiar contributions, and today, I saw they not only started an advertising article, Draft:Over The Top (digital agency) with classic signs of PR since the information and sources are all published and republished PR, and Over The Top (digital marketing) which was immediately started a few hours later by an SPA account with no other contributions or history of articles and contribs, and lo and behold Scorpion293 reviews it and defends the article at both the talk page and his own user talk. Other new examples today are then Draft:Jose Florez, Mental Daily (see large presence there) and then Jamie P. Velez. As it is, the user of Jamie P. Velez was banned for advertising. Another today is this which shows the mirrored signs of clear advertising, and starting them in Draftspace yet despite being as they claim: "An experienced user". Next, is the classic example of both FoCuSandLeArN and Kavdiamanju (see ANI above), is their answers to my questions which kept my main questions unanswered. Next is one of the apparent "experienced reviews" was this which also shows the instant appearance of select advertising and yet this user only says "I'm unaware of the [companies" yet this is all beyond coincidental, contributing to the fact he knew which article was there each time. All of this shows both clear COI and then paid contributions, violations of our policies. As with the former 2 users, they entered reviewing in articles and defending advertisements as in Scorpion293's case. Note: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scorpion293 which has a summary of their involvements also. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the subject on this discussion. I responded to the user who has placed the incident. Here is what I stated: "I created the draft article, however, I submitted it under "Over The Top (digital agency)" for reviewing. Then I saw soon later that another user created the same page but under "Over The Top (digital marketing), so I approved that one. I remember the user now, his name appeared in the New pages feed. I apologize for the inconvenience."

I'm not being paid, as stated above. I've been editing on Wiki for over a decade and try my hardest to remove spam and even earned an admin barnstar for that. I'm going to continue reviewing new pages, I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of admins, I would have done the same. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• What's still unanswered is the fact nearly all of the articles I've seen you involved with, are all from SPA spam accounts, something that is not so often seen here, and especially not when a second has barely passed in between. This is also questionable when "I'm not aware of the company" is next to "I started an article for the company with their information". SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Page move help

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

---

Hi, Apologies for this being in the wrong place however I asked one admin who seemed to just ignore it so figure this'd be the next best place,
Could someone delete Allan drive middle school, and then move Delete This Page to Allan drive middle school please as Delete This Page has all of the history,
Some newbie had moved them and messed everything up,
Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Davey2010:, perhaps WP:RMT would be the best place for this request? I have copied this to there. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah thank you TheMagikCow for suggesting as well as for kindly copying it over for me - Much appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 16:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. At least, I'm pretty sure I did it right. Let me know if I screwed up somehow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant thank you NinjaRobotPirate - Yep you've done it all correctly :), Thanks again for your help :), –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Wikihounding

@Alfie Gandon: is in violation of WP:Wikihounding. It is worth noting that's she was banned about a week ago for 48 hours for edit warring. I have also warned her over wikihounding twice on her talk page. [195] [196]

Here are some examples. [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Both editors could be sanctioned under the WP:TROUBLES arbcom decision and looking at their to/fro revert wars its difficult to say who is worse. I suggest a block for both. Disclosure, I have reverted to the long standing consensus at Robin Newton as changes of nationality are always contentious in TROUBLES articles, this should be discussed in the talk page. I have also been involved at British Empire, where Mr Gandon breeched 3RR on 31 Dec 2016, I warned but did not report [202]. I also opened an SPI case which cleared Mr Gandon. WCM_email 16:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Withdrawing my remark, seems that Apollo The Logician, a new user, was unaware of the DS. WCM_email 00:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What on earth have I done? All I did was revert her wikihounding. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:TROUBLES these pages are subject to discretionary sanctions regarding edit warring, which you have violated. The WP:TAG team edit warring at Irish slaves myth was also rather obvious. WCM_email 16:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Both Wee Curry Monster and Apollo the Logician have been involved in a dispute at British Empire. Both are inveterate edit-warriors who seem somehow to have escaped sanction up to now. Apollo has recently begun what they describe as wikihounding at Mongol Empire. I've noticed Apollo making controversial edits around Northern Ireland-related articles, so feel obliged to keep a closer eye. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever edited the British empire article so I presume that was a mistake. I am interested in empires and have a number of empire related pages on my watchlist. Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not edit warring to revert an edit which was intended as wikihounding, also I never knew such a policy existed. Tag team edit? What? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mr Gandon [203] Apollo the Magician (ATL) has never edited at British Empire, I suggest you don't toss allegations about that can easily be shown as false. I've not been sanctioned as unlike you I've never breached 3RR eg [204],[205],[206],[207],[208] (that's 5RR). To ATL, reverting what you perceive to be wikihounding is not one of the exceptions at WP:3RR. If you're not aware of the discretionary sanctions I suggest you make yourself familiar with them rapidly as many of your edits violate those sanctions. A self-revert would be in order. WCM_email 16:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the edits you are talking about, I never violated the 3RR Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WCM, your name seem familiar, were you not once blocked for edit warring?Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

10 years ago, once, on a different article and more of an example of not understanding policy well enough when I first started editing. Your point? To ATL unless I'm very much mistaken, DS mean there is a 1RR rule on WP:TROUBLES articles not 3RR. WCM_email 17:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: That's a helluva memory you got there mate. WCM was blocked for 24-hours on 8 July 2007; your account was created three months before. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Not really, I recall the name (it's a fairly memorable one), and I was (if I recollect correctly) party to the dispute. But I did cheat a little (I checked to make sure I was remembering the same user).Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If that is true then I am in breach of policy but I must profess my ignorance, I never knew of such a rule.Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hence, my point you should familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions. Regards, WCM_email 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My point is that you should not "toss allegations about that can easily be shown as false.", in this case that a user (unlike you) has never been sanctioned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Really, do you think thats a helpful contribution, all righty then. I was blocked once for edit warring, ten years ago on a different article, and btw what I meant was I'd never been sanctioned on the BE article. Happy now, ya got me, I spoke imprecisely. Tea and medals all round. WCM_email 17:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, Slatersteven. With regard to the British Empire article, I apologise to Apollo; I'm confusing them with someone else. The rest of what I said stands. Wee Curry Monster in particular seems to favour slow edit wars, i.e. gaming the system, instead of discussion (see Talk:British Empire) and I've no idea why they're referring to copyright tags here. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And on the subject of Wikihounding [209] based upon this ANI and one other edit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This (the above) is also (apparently) a question [210] it reads more like a statement that I am following him around (on two pages) and seems to be a case of misrepresentation what he had said.Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So will action be taken or not? Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I will take that as a no then. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment A lot going on above here, but I think there is clear evidence of Alfie hounding Apollo:

• Trouble starts with This merge & redirect of Irish slaves myth (a page Alfie created) to Irish indentured servants. Alfie reverted the merge, Apollo reverted it back, and then a whole lot of edit-warring followed. (See this AN3R report).
• While the two were fighting over the redirect, Aflie started following Apollo to other articles, see: [211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219].
• That's nine separate pages that Aflie followed Apollo to (which they'd never edited before), and in each case their first edit to the page was to undo one of Apollo's.
• Aflie's reverts were mostly on the 10th and 15th (with the latter "session" being after a block for edit-warring).

I think at minimum a strong warning not to follow other editors and not to edit war is in order here - probably to both parties but in particular to Alfie, who seems to have a pretty serious WP:OWN issue with Irish slaves myth. Also I note some talk of DS upthread, but it does not appear that either Alfie or Apollo has been formally notified of the WP:TROUBLES DS. Honestly I'm not sure they'd be all that useful in this case, as these two editors' conflict appears to originate in pre-20th Century Irish history stuff. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

A lot going on indeed. Fyddlestix has neglected to describe their own involvement at Irish slaves myth, where Apollo has served as a useful hewer of wood and drawer of water for them. Fyddlestix often neglects things like this when an editor is breaking the rules but serving their purpose e.g. when reporting an edit war that Apollo was involved in, Fyddlestix refused to mention this, and in this discussion involving Apollo and wikihounding, failing to mention Apollo's wikihounding of me. When Apollo came to my notice, I saw a pattern of provocative editing on Northern Ireland-related articles. This didn't surprise me, given their aggressive tactic of non-discussion and reverting at Irish slaves myth, so I reverted the more egregious. The amount of withheld information here is depressing; a little more honesty would ensure a lot more good faith. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations.

Hi, YSSYguy has made baseless allegations in his edit summaries on Iran Air and referred to my ip as a sock of some chap. I would like to know if he has any evidence or proof of that at all and in case he doesn't I'd appreciate some type of action against him. Cheers. 176.112.17.175 (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and the accusations might be construed as a personal attack. However, your own behavior isn't beyond reproach either, regarding WP:3RR and WP:BRD. You might have raised the issue on the TP, but you didn't. I suggest you rectify that. Kleuske (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There are recent SPI cases involving (registered) editors with an interest in Iran Air. I don't know how quickly these turn "stale" - is it possible a checkuser could confirm/reject the allegations made against 176.112....? 80.229.60.197 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock. I'll semi-protect the article, and I guess I'll probably block the latest IP socks, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Done, but it seems kind of pointless to block someone who can access IP addresses in both Ukraine and Netherlands. He's just going to reappear under some other proxy or compromised system in Poland. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

139.192.182.85

This anonymous user have added bogus information in many articles. Moreover, after other users try to reverted it back, he again edit it and leave a statement in the summary which I deemed very impolite and against Wikipedia guidelines. I therefore treated his statement as a personal attack. Furthermore, this is not my first time reporting this. I have reported numerous anonymous accounts for the last few months for the same actions and they never cease to stop. I need the admin to intervene in this issue so that these anonymous user would stop bothering other users again. Cheers. CWJakarta (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: Here is the example of his personal attack:[220][221][222][223][224]

Edit:It seems that he removed the content of his talk page whenever me and other users tried to warned him about this issue. He also attempted to remove my report in here. CWJakarta (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a personal attack to me, just looks like complete nonsense. Google translate came up with nothing. That said, I'm not sure how constructive the IP editor is being, especially if the information is incorrect. Removing discussions here instead of at least attempting to communicate (even if not in English) seems like a red flag to me. Κσυπ Cyp   14:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the reason google translate cannot translate the statement is because its in Batak language, not Indonesian. According to this site:[225] the phrase Martole jongjong means (sorry) "to have sex while standing". Doesn't that seems vulgar and inappropiate to you? CWJakarta (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No reason to apologise for translating it. Didn't manage to translate any other phrases via that site, but I guess that's enough inappropriateness… Blocked. Κσυπ Cyp   15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. However, there is one more thing. The host would most likely use another IP address to create yet another mischief, just like what he did in the past. Is there a way to prevent the host from doing this in the future? CWJakarta (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Apart from re-reporting each new IP, there's edit filters (which I haven't yet looked much into, so don't really know about that). Κσυπ Cyp   16:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I Just left a |note for Aldnonymous on Meta - he's an Indonesian speaker who happens to speak Batak, he's also an admin and a check user for the Indonesian Wikipedia as well. (Couldn't hurt, right ? ) KoshVorlon} 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl and categories

Since there is a near 0% chance this will be accepted at ArbCom, I'm reopening this thread after Jbhunley's good faith close. This can probably be resolved here before the ArbCom request is even archived. Jbhunley's closing statement is copied below for posterity. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Jbhunley's original closing statement: This is now the subject of a request for arbitration [226]. Splitting the discussion serves only to confuse matters. Jbh^Talk 02:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

I recently nominated a category tree for renaming in the first section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 8, and after it was closed in favor of renaming, I followed the closing administrator's instructions to have the categories renamed; I initially listed them at WP:CFDS because I wasn't 100% sure how to have them bot-renamed (there's nothing here precisely comparable to Commons:User:CommonsDelinker/commands) and knew that admins active there were familiar with doing this, although I specifically stated that this was a technical matter of enforcing the CFD and not subject to the normal provision permitting people to object. However, once I discovered how to do it, I listed them on the bot-move page, and the bot moved these categories. Despite this clear situation, BrownHairedGirl has rejected the whole situation, claiming that an objection she made to the listing at CFDS prohibits this situation from going forward, and she has now ordered the bot to begin recreating them: she is creating over one hundred categories that were deleted in accordance with a CFD. On top of all of this, we have a profoundly disingenuous situation: she accused me of violating WP:INVOLVED by listing them on the bot-move page (it's full-protected) despite the fact that I was merely following the closing admin's instructions. At the same time, she has first injected herself into the discussion and then taken precisely the type of action that she considers to have been a violation on my part. When you use admin tools to follow someone else's instructions carefully, you're not INVOLVED, but when you do it on your own initiative, you definitely are.

After warnings, we block people who create more than a few pages in defiance of an XFD; it's time to enforce the CFD decision with a block long enough to ensure that the pages be moved back to the CFD-chosen place. There's no place for someone who edit-wars to create more than a hundred pages after their deletion at XFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: you forgot to notify her. Done [227]. Jbh^Talk 01:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I was writing up something else and hadn't yet gotten to it. Given my warning that going ahead with this would result in a request for sanctions, and her statement that she was "taking the bait" (see the "rejected the whole situation" link), I was planning to do all the notifications as soon as I was done with my writeups. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did hope that Nyttend would take a deep breath and recognise that they just might have acted unwisely, but it seems not.

This is not complicated:

A/ I dispute the right of a CFD closer to dictate the outcome of categories which were neither listed nor tagged in the CFD discussion, because editors will not have been warned of a possible change to such categories.

B/ Regardless of the merits of the closure, the closer's instruction[228] was tonominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. Note that word "nominate", because that does not grant Nyttend or anyone else the right to ignore all the long-standing procedures for CFD nominations.

Sadly, Nyttend did ignore nearly all of them. AS I pointed out on Nyttend's talk page:

1. They listed the categories at CFD/S, but did not validly nominate them for CFD/S, because they didn't tag them
2. Having listed (but not tagged) them, they simply ignored an objection at CFD/S, having somehow decided that they had a right to unilaterally overrule any objections -- despite there being no such exemption at CFD
3. Having ignored the objection, they then proceeded to implement the moves only 46 minutes after listing them, despite the clear instructions at WP:CFD/S that nominations must remain listed for 48 hours
4. And they did all of this in respect of a CFD nomination which they themselves had made, so you were certainly WP:INVOLVED

Regardless of what anyone thinks of the closer's decision, the closer did not instruct Nyttend to bypass CFD/S as they did.

I am also disappointed by the aggressively hostile and threatening response of Nyttend to my challenge to their actions. That does not not fit well with the civility required in WP:ADMINACCT. And the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT nature of Nyttend's post here is equally unimpressive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Just on principle, I'd suggest that anything here that involved 200 of anything (in this case, categories and moves) should be done belt and braces, to say the least; the level of care required has not, perhaps, been adequately exhibited in this case. If any other editor had done this and then complained at ANI, I think there would be murmurs of aboriginal tools, etc; I suggest the filer withdraw it ASAP- if the community allows that. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Trouts all 'round and move on. Nyttend's interpretation of the CfD result seems reasonable to me, even if the minutiae of the process wasn't followed exactly. BHG's attempt at "discussion" ("Are you going to revert promptly, or will I do it?") wasn't exactly aimed at getting to the bottom of things. Nyttend's response was, in part, needlessly inflammatory ("Yeah? Try it and I'll have your bit!" (this may not be a literal quote)), and BHG's response needlessly focused on the worst part, ignoring the offer to discuss informally or redo the CfD. I'd suggest to Nyttend that threatening to go after an admin's bit on the basis of a CfD that didn't really follow the process because you couldn't be bothered to tag all the pages is going someone overboard. And I'd suggest to BHG that any time the phrase "Nevertheless, I will take the bait" escapes your keyboard, you should probably think twice. Now let's have another, proper CfD that, you know, lists all the categories affected and tags the relevant pages. GoldenRing (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @GoldenRing: That sequencing omits my objection at CFD/S[229] and moving of the listing to the opposed section, which Nyttend simply ignored.
    Yes, I was terse in my reply, but since my politely-worded objection had not even been acknowledged, I saw no point in beating about the bush. If the moves were to be everted, it was best that it be done quickly before any further changes complicated matters, so I wanted to get straight to the point.
    I accept that "I'll take the bait" was probably not a helpful phrase, but I was thrown at the time by the extraordinary aggression of Nyttend's threatening response, and wanted to convey that I would not be intimidated. (Having recently been on the receiving end of domestic violence in which I was threatened with retribution for calling police, that sort of aggression and threatened victimisation cuts deep with me). Still, poor phrasing.
    There is a WP:ADMINACCT issue here, and I sincerely hope that Nyttend will be able to assure us that: a) as admin, they will in future at leaat reply to an objection from another admin before using their tools; b) their threatening hostility when challenged over this use of their admin tools is a totally out-of-character episode which will not be repeated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (non-admin, active on CfD) If I had been Nyttend I would have said "I realize I was wrong and I'll never do it like this again" instead of filing this complaint against BrownHairedGirl. If I had been BrownHairedGirl I would have filed a complaint against Nyttend (after they clearly did not regret their behaviour in any way) but also I would not immediately have reverted Nyttend's page moves since it is very likely that the moves are in line with consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: I think that the question of whether the moves are in line with consensus is as yet unanswered. The CFD discussion attracted only one !vote; it listed only 1 of the 222 categories affected; and it involved the tagging of only 5 affected categs (4 were added to the discussion[230] only 1 minute before closure[231]). That's not a good test of consensus, and nor was the fact of the categories being untagged at CFD/S and listed there for only 46 minutes rather than the 48 hour minimum.
    It takes only a minutes to use WP:AWB to generate a list of categories for a CFD discussion, and a few minutes more to tag them. If a nominator lacks the tools or skills to do that, the good folk at WP:BOTREQ will help with a smile. And doing it ensures that everyone potentially interested is properly notified, both through sight of the category pages and through the article alerts system.
    And yes, maybe I should have filed a complaint after Nyttend's hostile response ... but my immediate concern was to restore the status quo ante before any further changes complicated or impeded a reversion. The community can now decide how to handle the remaining 217 categories. I am tempted to ask Fayenatic london to reconsider their closure of the CFD, since I think it was too far-reaching and thereby ultra vires; but between this discussion and a still-open RFAR, I'd prefer to leave a decision on that step still later. I know that Fayenatic london acted in good faith in making a closure which they thought was in line with a undocumented consensus; I disagree, but I think it might be helpful to have a DRV to resolve that question, which underlies all of this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Has there been any documented disagreement regarding the actual merits of the renaming proposal so far? As far as I can see, BHG seems to have stated her objections purely on the procedural level (and she probably had a point on that level), but she hasn't said if and why she would actually prefer the old titles. To me, the new ones (as favoured by Nyttend) appear to be rather obvious and undisputable improvements, and I honestly struggle to think of any reason a competent speaker of English might see for preferring the old set. If BHG has some substantial argument in their favour, or at least provide some plausible grounds for thinking that other editors might have such reasons, then it would make sense to say, "hey, let's roll this back and wait for some more feedback". If not, her complaint should be thrown out as unproductive process-wonkery. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Fut.Perf.: See my reply above to Marcocapelle. My objection is not process-wonkery; it is about the failure to do the notifications which might have generated more views to be added to be a very poorly-attended CFD debate.
    The CFD was based on so little tagging of the affected categories (5 out of 222, or only 2%) that we simply don't know whether other views might have been added to the 1 !vote at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, your answer has again been purely on the process level. I'll ask you one more time, directly: do you, personally, actually have a reason to prefer the old titles, or can you at least think of such an argument? If you won't name such an argument here and now, I for one will consider the case closed. It's all very well to be an advocate for procedural fairness, but if there isn't at least a plausible expectation of a potential, legitimate content disagreement to be had, that is a waste of energy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are missing the point. I can think of a number of situations where I have made a proposal I thought was a slam-dunk, as I could not envision any rational opposition, but upon presentation to a broad group of editors, learned that there were some objections that I hadn't considered. While I think the proposed wording is an improvement, and can't think why anyone would disagree, the main point is that the editors who might have an opinion on the subject were not notified. We have rules for notification and a 48 period for comment for a good reason - someone might come up with a coherent objection, and it doesn't hurt the project to ask and wait two days to be sure.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
        • That's exactly why I intervened. I have not even tried to form a view on the substantive merits. I just want to ensure that those who might want to take a substantive view get a chance to do so.
          And if I had taken any any substantive view, I would not have used my admin tools, because then I would have been WP:INVOLVED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 22:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment While I'm sure this does not yet belong at ArbCom, I'm not yet convinced it even belongs here. I don't pretend to have a full grasp on the process issues, but my review of the background suggests that Nyttend and BHG Have a disagreement about the exact protocol for making this change. It looks to me like a sensible change but sometimes t's need to be crossed and i's need to be dotted before changes are effected. I think these two ought to be asked to have a discussion, probably on a CFD talk page and only if that discussion fails to reach a consensus should it end up here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sphilbrick: The place where this discussion should have taken happened was at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations. There is indeed a discussion there, in response to my objection, but sadly Nyttend chose to ignore it and instead to escalate to here and RFAR. I would happy for the substantive discussion to be continued at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations ... but I do think that there is as a WP:ADMINACCT issue to be considered here in relation to Nyttend's conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (as closer of original CFD): The original CFD listed 5 categories at the top of the relevant hierarchy. All five were tagged. Only one was listed in the usual format at the start of the CFD, but the other four tagged categories were mentioned in the nomination. I therefore believe it was acceptable for me to also list them in the usual format before closing the discussion. I am raising this minor point first in my own defence because BrownHairedGirl raised this at 18:36 above, in the paragraph raising the possibility of a DRV.

In my (5 years?) experience at CFD no-one takes exception to an WP:INVOLVED admin processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves, but the categories must be tagged and must wait 48 hours, and should not be processed if there is any opposition. As Nyttend had not followed these steps, IMHO it was in order for BrownHairedGirl to use the bot to revert Nyttend's hasty processing. I note that BrownHairedGirl has extensive experience at CFD, whereas Nyttend's efforts have been mainly at Commons and elsewhere.

It seems to me that trouts will be sufficient sanction, and the case in question should play out at CFDS. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't we update WP:INVOLVED to formalize admins to be allowed processing items that they have listed at CFDS themselves? (I fully agree that this should be allowed if there is no opposition at all after 48 hours.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• I share Fayenatic london's experience that CFDS has for years accepted admins processing moves which they had requested provided that all procedural requirements were met. I am not aware of this having met any objections, so I support Marcocapelle's proposal to note this at WP:INVOLVED. Obviously, that should note the requirement for all procedures to have been followed, with no admin allowed to use discretion in their own favour. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of CfD, I agree with the part of BHG's objection that said this should have had wider discussion and should be re-opened and re-listed citing all of the types of categories that will be affected, and given a wider airing. The CfD had only a single !vote, and in my mind probably should have at the very least been re-listed before closing. Also, I have to say, as an English major and professional editor, the old word order was correct English and the proposed new word order is not. That is, "populated [waterside] places" is correct English word order, and "[waterside] populated places" is not, or at the very least is much less so and is awkward. Also we have here two admins, one whose specialty is categories, and one who has made less than 0.9% of their edits in categories. I think the latter should have at least given the former respect and a valid hearing. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Section header for easy editing

• I've been offline most of the day. Among our basic principles are the concepts of not demanding rigid adherence to process, of obeying community consensus as determined at XFDs, and of not using administrative tools to win battles. Here we have a CFD that closes in favor of a set of actions including instructions to me to get some categories renamed, BHG objects because I don't rigidly obey a process that's meant for undiscussed moves (note that the result of opposition at CFDS is a CFD, which was already completed), I strongly reject her demands to go against the CFD consensus and remind her that she's free to start a new discussion about the subject, and she goes ahead anyway and uses administrative tools to win the battle by creating more than one hundred categories after their deletion in accordance with the CFD. It's well established that abuse of rights leads to those rights being removed: create a lot of pages in defiance of XFD after being warned and your editing rights get removed, use rollback in a simple dispute (just my example, not something that happened here) and you lose rollback, vandalise a template and template-editor gets removed (again, example), and use admin rights in defiance of XFD consensus and you lose admin rights. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, see the top of WP:CFD/S. In the first para it says that categories must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal and that a request may be processed 48 hours after it was listed if there are no objections. This delay allows other editors to review the request to ensure that it meets the criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

You — and you alone — decided to ignore all that.

1. Nobody else told you to list the categories without tagging them; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[232]. They did not tell you to skip the CFD/S requirement for tagging the categories, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
2. Nobody else told you to override any objections; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[233]. They did not tell you to override CFD/S procedures in relation to objections, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
3. Nobody else told you to ignore the 48 hour delay rule; that was your unilateral decision. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[234]. They did not tell you to cut the CFD/S requirement for a 48 hour delay down to 46 minutes, and had no authority to tell you to do so.
4. Nobody else told you to use your own admin tools to trigger the bots. The CFD closer told you to nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming[235]. They did not tell you to use your own admin tools to implement the nomination.

I am not WP:INVOLVED. I have no substantive view on these categories, and throughout this I have sought only to uphold procedures so that interested editors get a chance to comment on proposals. I objected because I believed that the closing admin had exceeded their discretion, and the rest of this saga has been about you exceeding that closing admin's instructions.

You, however, are WP:INVOLVED, because you used your tools against objections, in breach of process rules, in pursuit of a proposal which yourself had initiated.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, you are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. When I lodged my procedural objection[236] to your CFD/S nomination, I was unaware that you intended to use your own admin tools. But when you chose to use your tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to a procedural objection.

Having used your admin tools, you then had a WP:ADMINACCT responsibility to respond promptly and civilly to my request[237] that you revert. Instead you chose to respond with a threat[238] that sanctions will be requested immediately: a block, [snipquote] and a desysop.

You have been an admin since November 2007, almost as long as me. Nine years is quite long enough for you have learnt WP:ADMINACCT. You have been an editor since 2006-08-08, which is quite long enough for you to learn to read and follow the instructions on a procedural page before using that procedure.

You have falsely accused me WP:WHEELWARing, a serious matter which involves reinstating the reversal of an admin action. In fact, I reversed an admin action per WP:RAAA. After your 9 years as an admin, it's time you took a few minutes to study the difference.

As others have pointed out, I have been a regular participant at CFD for over ten years, whereas you appear to be unfamiliar with the procedure. When an admin vastly-more experienced than you in a particular field lodges a procedural objection to your proposed course of action, it is common sense to at least try to discuss that objection before proceeding.

The status quo ante has now been restored. It's long past time for you to abandon your desire for vengeance aginst an admin who thwarted your desire to override long-standing procedures, and get back to the discussion at WP:CFD/S#Opposed_nominations. See you there. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Nyttend seems to be racking up quite a "threaten to go after people for not agreeing with me" record: [239] (summary: a clearly WP:INVOLVED close at RM, that threatened sanctions for using normal move processes in ways well supported by a long string of consensus decisions, just because he doesn't like the guideline in question – Nyttend was one of its most outspoken opponents at an RfC about it within the year, and had also agitated about the matter at the talk page of one of the RM participants). "I'm going to see you administratively punished" is not an appropriate approach for an admin to take about process not going the way they desire. I think this should be addressed sooner rather than later. It's not being addressed here now, and wasn't a few days ago, because these actions are being viewed in isolation. So: let's not view them in isolation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

The closer of the CFD, Fayenatic london, wrote the following a few hours ago at CFDS: "As for the categories nominated here, now that speedy renaming has been opposed (both on procedure by BrownHairedGirl and on merits by David Eppstein), they need to go to a full CFD. I suggest that this should present "Option A" and "Option B", either to approve the nomination, or to reverse the Dec 8 CFD." [240]. I propose that this be done forthwith, and a link to that discussion posted to this ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. That's the standard CFD/S way of handling objections. Time to move on, and start fixing this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support GoldenRing (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Abstain from !voting on this as an ANI proposal, but I'm supportive of this resolution to the conflict. We shouldn't need an ANI thread and formal proposal to the broader community to tell us to conduct an opposed speedy rename as we always do. It's well outside the scope of ANI to interfere with how our deletion processes are run, even in the sense of affirming how they're run. This should just be closed as no administrative action merited. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Question for BU Rob13: If the status quo ante has been restored (which I think it has given BHG's comment in the section prior to this one), and no further rumble ensues, are you saying or implying that an additional CfD may not even be necessary (providing that the involved parties implicitly or explicitly concede to the status quo ante and/or withdraw the original CFD and CfD/S)? I'm not sure how all this works; my initial proposal was designed to put an end to the unnecessary squabble and move on to the resolution, but if the matter is already resolved by default or by protocol, then perhaps indeed this entire ANI filing can be closed as no administrative action needed, unless Nyttend continues his objections. IMO editors who call into question Nyttend's lack of judgment here and cite a possible pattern may have some cause for concern and could open a new thread or subthread, or file or post further at ArbCom, but I personally would just as soon have this matter settled without that drama, since the procedural protocol is pretty clear. Softlavender (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

That about sums up my thoughts as well. The step too far here was in the filing of the ANI. And it's not even that is represents problematic conduct so much as it makes me wonder at Nyttend's perspective on this affair that he thought BHG's conduct on the categories would sustain the call for a block. So while I'd like Nyttend to take more caution from this episode than his comments have suggested he has, I think if this can end without further sanction, it will be better overall. I don't think either of these two is about to make a grudge out of this, so I'd personally hope that nobody launches a follow up thread in the hopes this may end as amicably as it may. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: How exactly was I WP:INVOLVED? I acted throughout in admin capacity to uphold procedure, and that is clearly exempted from WP:INVOLVED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: You weren't (at least not especially, beyond the fact that some tense comments were exchanged). I was saying that Nyttend was involved, to the degree that they supported the moves. However, I actually got the "I'll have your bit" comment confused with other conduct from another ANI here when commenting on Nyttend (which is embarrassing), so I've amended my comment above to remove the innacurate reference to involvement. Apologies for the confusion. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Any editor can, of course, take this to a CfD discussion. That's not something we need ANI to tell us to do, though. ANI isn't a venue to say when a deletion discussion is or isn't needed. It's a venue to request administrative review of a situation that may warrant administrative action. Anyone, including an administrator, may open a CfD on this issue in their capacity as a volunteer editor if they wish for this to be discussed further. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This should not have come this far. WP:IAR doesn't mean that processes and procedures can be ignored simply because they are in an editor's (or administrator's) way. For example, once an article has been PRODded, it cannot be PRODded again if the PROD is contested. Period. One also cannot simply delete/rename/move a series of articles/templates/categories/etc. simply because a few related articles were so deleted/renamed/moved at XfD or RM. Many trout are swimming in these waters. I recommend closing this and taking all affected categories through a full CfD. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I'm sensitive to BU Rob 13's argument above, but because an Arbitration request was, to some extent, dependent on there being an outcome to this ANI, I think a !vote is appropriate, even if it shouldn't be necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is the most obvious solution anyway, no need to vote for, per Rob13. The proposal implies however that no actions are being taken against BrownHairedGirl which I fully support. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Until the procedure is in fact enacted, I feel it is necessary to !vote for it, because apparently(?) it has not yet been enacted due to Nyttend's accusations and/or threats. If someone would just go ahead and create the appropriate CfD as proposed by Fayenatic and reiterated above, and leave a link to it here, then we could all probably get back to doing whatever it is we do when we are not on the drama boards. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – I am astonished at Nyttend's reaction. Opposed speedies cannot proceed as speedies and have to go to cfd. There are plenty of proposals at speedy which are opposed for one reason or another. Some succeed at cfd, others don't. Oculi (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This is a tempest in a teapot, so we need to let the storm run its course. !Vote on the CFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support provided there are no actions taken against BrownHairedGirl. This seems to be something that was needlessly escalated. I think there should probably be some trouting all around.--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support This is the clear way forward. What we have here are two broadly respected admins who happened to share a bad day over some poor calls. Others have hilighted each of those stumbles above, so I won't belabour those details; suffice it to say, both users made multiple departures from both best practice and the principle of civil engagement over this matter. I don't know either incredibly well, but have had enough experience with both to suspect that, at this point, each is more embarrassed about this affair than they are letting on, for fear of ceding too much ground to the other in this discussion. So let's just back the whole matter up to the foreshortened CfD, proceed as normal from there, and move along. I'd also add that it would be nice to see some mutual apology once the substantive issue is resolved (for the curtness and lack of collegiality, even if they can't come to see eye-to-eye on the procedural matter), but it will suffice if each retires to their corner civilly. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I think this is the right way forward here after reading everything above.Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Back at CFD

Per the discussion above, and a discussion with Fayenatic london and Nyttend at User talk:Fayenatic london#Next_steps_re_Waterside_populated_places (permalink), I have created a new CFD discussion at WP:CFD 2017 January 16. This lists all the categories, and offers editors a choice between finishing the renaming proposed by Nyttend, or reverting the 5 categories renamed so far.

In the discussion at FL's talk page, we have begun considering an RFC to examine the underlying procedural issues.

Thanks to everyone for their input. Does that wrap this whole thing up? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that does wrap things up, since there were no objections to this and no other proposed options, but we might want to leave this ANI thread unclosed so that for the next three days (that is, until the bot archives it after 72 hours of inactivity) people will notice the new CfD and !vote at it if they have an opinion. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Behavior and editing by Sabir Hun

The following discussion is closed. 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 contributor Sabir Hun reverted an edit on 27 December, and again [241], [242], [243] on 19 January, by which the: tendentious editor is not engaging in discussion ([244] and intentionally ignoring the Wikipedian policy), is inserting unsourced / unrelated information, is ignoring talkpage consensus, and my warning. I suspected that the user account could be a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov as shows similar behavior with pushing this unsourced / unrelated information. He ignored all these notes, and instead decided to report me at WP:AIV, and report me at WP:AN/3.--JoyceWood (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Muuratjärvi

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

---

Need some oversighting here, because WP:OUTing by vandal. Kleuske (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kleuske: You should contact an Oversighter in private, not on an ANI, as anyone can see the outing until someone revdels/OS's it, and more people will notice at ANI. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandalism - urgent block required

The following discussion is closed. 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:Obsoletebadger needs to be blocked immediately. The account is causing persistent vandalism. RoCo^(talk) 17:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rollingcontributor:, thanks for the report, blocked indef. In the future, stuff like this can be reported to WP:AIV where usually (but not always) you get faster action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, thanks! RoCo^(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Communications 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.

---

Hello? I received a warning that completely I can NOT understand?? The boxing editing I have done..is result of 50 years + involvement with my Sport. Your organization will be better served if you can keep the organizations past the WBO ~OUT~ of the picture. Also: the duel and tri world title picture presented in modern is a dandy mess. Ready to advise Wickipedia. John Wilkinson [CONTACT INFO REDACTED] use my text long as it will work. Put return email to me thank you. Not trying to tread against anyone I assure you but the IBO doesn't belong in the line up. You all are ill advised for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWilkinson (talk • contribs) 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I formatted this so it was easier to read. Another user (EEng) also redacted his contact info. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@JohnWilkinson: mate you haven't edited- or been warned for anything, for that matter- since last November. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 06:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but he got an ANI notice (and another warning) in very late November [245] that he did not see (because of the absence you mention) until he logged in again just now. Softlavender (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah ha, thanks, so he 'left' the day before. Lesson: look at history plus contributions :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It was in regards to this archived thread. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, I think this whole thing is insignificant (I think the OP's post here is just a lone driveby), but I'm going to ping Mac Dreamstate, who opened that old ANI thread and also left the talk-page warnings. Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Having read that old ANI, I think this thread should remain open for a bit. That last filing got slightly sidetracked by the WP:OUTING stuff, so this issue here was not properly resolved bask then. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty, so this comes up again. If someone could clarify what I'm supposed to do here, I'd be happy to oblige. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I personally have no real agenda here, but is there any merit to this user's communication above, or can we just let it drop (unless he starts editing again)? (Other people can chime in if they have concerns in any direction.) Softlavender (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I maintain that there is absolutely no merit to his agenda, but his lack of activity on WP (drive-by edits every few months or so; dormant otherwise) makes it tricky for me to present anything at EWN or ANI. I tried and failed both times, yet he keeps coming back to push the issue. Is it just a case of hit revert and wait for the next time, every time? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was hoping we could address. However harmless that behaviour seems, it's surely not acceptable. We would basically be giving permission for it! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Do you have the appropriate pages watched? If he repeats his behavior, could we have an admin who will agree to block him in that eventuality? And leave a warning to that effect on his talk page now? (Or some scenario like that.) It's troublesome when someone disappears after each spate of bizarre POV-pushing disruption. Softlavender (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Every article of interest watchlisted. It's only a handful of them anyway—just the ones where the IBO is present in the lead. Even if he did have a point in removing it (which he doesn't), the doublespeak manner in which he articulates himself and keeps posting personal information about himself (which led to me unwittingly tripping WP:OUT in the abovementioned ANI) makes it impossible for me at least to interact with him on the issue. I love me some discussion on the minutae of boxing, but not when it reaches galactic levels of nutty. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for watchlisting Mac Dreamstate, and I agree with Softlavender that we could do with an admin. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, NinjaRobotPirate, since you are here and you are an admin, would you agree to handle this if the issue crops up again and Mac Dreamstate reports it to you? Softlavender (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, ping me if it flares up again. I'll leave a message on User talk:JohnWilkinson that I hope will explain the situation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• NinjaRobotPirate, could you do one more tidying thing and block this duplicate (misspelled) account, which was abandoned before the correcly spelled one started editing?: JohnWilkinso (talk · contribs · logs). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I could be wrong, but it seems like this would fall under WP:VALIDALT. There isn't an explicit loophole there for "I misspelled my username", but I think it's a common sense extrapolation from several of the criteria. Technically, it's supposed to be declared somewhere, but it's not really hurting anything currently. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There's also another one: John (Calm)Wilkinson (talk · contribs · logs).

It's more of a case of that he forgot his password [246] on each of those accounts successively and so had to create successive new accounts. Normally we block the old one(s) in that scenario, especially if the person's entire edit history has been disruptive (which is a large understatement in this case). They are also not valid alternate accounts in that he does not declare the accounts on the others' pages, and also he edited the same articles with the three accounts. The user has serious CIR issues and is seriously disruptive, and those earlier accounts should be blocked as a precaution. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Geez, there's more of them? OK, sounds good; I'll block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NRP. Reclosing this now. Softlavender (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Panam2014-Pannam2014

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

---

Good Morning. Is it this normal? Editor Interaction Analyser --Buxlifa (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there anything suspicious about their edits? Have you asked them if they're a single person behind both user ID's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Panam2014 stopped editing on 7 October 2016, and was not blocked when they did so. Maybe they forgot their password or otherwise lost access to their account, because Pannam2014 only started editing for the first time the following day. The huge similarity in the names makes it clear there is no attempt to avoid scrutiny -- unless anyone can find examples of their trying to sway consensus or whatever.

Panam2014 only made one further edit since they stopped, on 14 January this year. Maybe they remembered their password, or maybe they booted up an old computer that had their login saved automatically or something.

Policy says "Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus". Buxlifa, rather than making your fourth edit to Wikipedia a post to this noticeboard, you could've asked, as Baseball Bugs suggests, a couple of polite questions of the users to clarify any curiosity you might have had. MPS1992 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning. Excuse me my English is bad. I ask a question because I see Panam2014 and Pannam2014 modify sames articles (it is forbidden) and it is officially proved it is the same person: [247]. --Buxlifa (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the source of your concerns. You may be correct that this type of editing overlap is forbidden on the French Wikipedia. But it is my interpretation that it is not forbidden here on the English Wikipedia. So long as the users do not get involved in further edit warring or whatever it was that got them blocked briefly here on English Wikipedia previously, there is not a problem. Although, I would hope that swapping between accounts every few months for no explained reason is not part of their plans. MPS1992 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Buxlifa: I've notified the user in question, which you are required to do when reporting them to ANI. As for the accounts; unless you have some evidence to the contrary, I'm not seeing any time at which this user has used their accounts deceptively, and thus no administrator action is necessary. I have, however, asked them to clarify the situation on their user page. Sam Walton (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Walton: hi, on October 2016, I have lost my password and I have created a new account. So in January 2017, I took over the control of my last account but to finish some edits, and to find myself, I finish the work with Pannam2014. Moreover, in Pannam2014, I sign by Panam2014. Moreover, I find it unwelcome this request of Buxlifa, contributor who often opposed me on fr: Wikipedia and I consider his action as a Wikihounding. Knowing that there is no cottage here and that his request is an attempt to transport on en.wiki, conflicts that have taken place elsewhere. For conflicts with Buxlifa, you can write to the administrators of fr.wikipedia.org, and I also have witnesses like @Jean-Jacques Georges:. Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Since I'm notified : yes, I can testify that there was some confusion on the French wikipedia because Panam2014 lost his password, created another account, etc. His good faith has since been proven. BTW, if Panam2014 had wanted to mislead or deceive anyone, I guess he'd have chosen another name than Pannam2014... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Assistance on Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons

The following discussion is closed. 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 just semi-protected Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons

I am somewhat involved here, but I feel that this was an obvious call. However, I want some independent review...

The situation is that a crowd of IP editors abroad who may well be connected to each other started insulting longtime page editors and making antisemitic and other aspersions. There had been some positive content suggestions but despite warnings they could not stay away from abuse and provocations. There are clear indications based on edit behavior patterns that it involves IP-hoppers, not sure if that's proxies or what. It may well be one well-proxied individual, though there seem to be at least 2-3 personalities and language patterns showing up (could be one person faking three identities). Given the ongoing IP hopping actions against individual abusive IPs did not seem useful.

My involvement is that I volunteer in the nonproliferation area on technical topics, have edited the article extensively in the past (and twice per talk page discussions/consensus recently). I don't think that's involved enough to disqualify taking this action, but as I said I'm noticeboarding for review by uninvolved admins. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeing that your actions have been criticised at that talk page (e.g. by the last IP to leave a note), you've opened yourself to some wikilawyering. I've unprotected it (to spare you the complaints) and reprotected it (to spare it the disruption), so anyone will see that this situation matches the "any reasonable administrator" chunk of WP:INVOLVED. I disagree with your reasons for protection, but 115.84.189.168's announcement of attempted meatpuppetry, by itself, is enough to warrant protection. Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

List of "states" is ambiguous. List of "nations" would be better. "We'll try to stay serene and calm / When Alabama gets The Bomb." -- Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Nation" is equally ambiguous—for instance, Scotland is a nation, and by virtue of HMNB Clyde has a huge stack of nuclear weapons, but isn't a state. "Sovereign state" is the formula Wikipedia usually uses. ‑ Iridescent 09:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The 50 United States are sovereign states, to a degree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Could be, but nuclear power in the US is under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, so if by any chance there are nuclear weapons in the US, it's the Feds, not the individual states which house them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

In this context, use of the term "nations" would be particularly problematic, since the state of Israel officially rejects the very concept of an Israeli nation. RolandR (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I know this is picking nits, but in this case, the term "state" means "sovereign nation-state." For example, the USA is the sovereign nation-state composed of a federation of 50 semi-autonomous states, the federal capital region, and a number of territories. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Wtshymanski continues to revert edits from IP address editors.

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

---

Note: section heading placed by original harassment IP poster redacted since it contained at least one blatant lie against the editor involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is continuing to routinely revert good faith edits made by IP address based editors in spite of an editing restriction preventing him from doing so.

Previous ANI complaints:

[248] (Result: Editing restriction on reverting any edits made by IP address based editors).

[249] (Result: 2 week block for violating edit restriction).

[250] (Result: 1 month block for violating edit restriction).

Now Wtshymanski is back to his old ways of routinely recerting IP address based edits.

1. [251] where Wtshymanski has reverted a good faith edit from an IP that a Geiger counter is a type of radiometer (which it is, though the linked to article discussed a different type of radiometer). Wtshymanski reverted the change with an incorrect edit summary.
2. [252] where an IP address editor made a good faith edit that made the presentation of the units consistent. Wtshymanski reverted the change restoring the inconsistent presentation.

This continued campaign can only serve to drive away potentially useful editors from the project. This action must be met with a longer block (or even indefinite as he shows no intention of complying with the restriction). 85.255.237.163 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless of the state of the IP that is complaining, Wtshymanski is under a community imposed sanction that prevents any reversion of IP edits. See WP:Editing restrictions. Even allowing for the exceptions of obvious vandalism, the second diff provided above is certainly a violation of his restrictions, and given the previous pattern if this is the only one I will be highly surprised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just noting for the record that the same IP user who posted this complaint was blocked in November for doing the same, as an obvious case of wikihounding (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive939); Wtshymanski was left unsanctioned. I, personally, see no reason not to react in the same way again (and I personally would refuse to enforce this restriction on W. anyway.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I am glad that the admin tools you were granted by the community are getting good use. Perhaps you should make a list of other community imposed restrictions you are unwilling to enforce so we know in advance what you wont do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • You got any problems with an administrator choosing not to do what he doesn't want to do? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Can either of you two enlighten me as to how exactly the above two statements are helpful? I'm confused... Kleuske (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
        • It would take too long and probably annoy everyone so no. From looking at Wtshymanski contributions from the past few months they have been reverting in part or in full good faith edits by IP editors. So this isnt an isolated incident. Dec - Vandalism and BLP violations are generally an exception to revert restrictions. Reverting overly promotional material is not. Whats more interesting is that there is a pattern of named users making changes to articles (generally in the Electronics area) which are subsequently edited by an IP (correcting minor spelling issues etc) then Wtshymanski straight away reverts or alters the original change. So its clear they are watching the articles for edits by IP editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In other news, I note that the filing IP has been blocked. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes its nice than an admin who is willing to state they will flat out not enforce a community imposed sanction against an editor, but are willing to block people who report them. Thats not remotely biased at all... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter what's your take on this ? Personally I agree that the IP's edits were not vandalism and per the link above , Wtshymanski is prohibited from reverting I.P editors per sanction. Since it was agreed upon and closed by admins, admins need to enforce that sanction .KoshVorlon} 16:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In other other news, I'm wondering why a series of commonly-geolocating IP addresses have been used to hound Wtshymanski over this restriction in exactly the same manner as the user who originally proposed the restriction, a user who was later confirmed to be a sockpuppet, and whose other sockpuppets have also grave-danced over Wtshymanski's earlier blocks. I suggest whoever closes this ought to take this IP's comments with a grain of salt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Grain? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• I know nothing about the history of this, but Wtshymanski clearly violated his editing restriction, regardless of who reported them or their motivations. I've seen SPIs created by what was obviously a sock, but the SPI itself had merit. So, the filer was blocked, and the reported puppet was blocked. I have no opinion on the merits of the IP's history or whether they deserved to be blocked. Future Perfect at Sunrise is correct that they don't have to block W for violating the edit restriction. No administrator is required to take action. That doesn't mean, though, that W shouldn't be blocked by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• It looks like this is not a good-faith request, and such requests should be declined. Otoh, I did not check Wtshymanski reverts by IPs, but if this is indeed true that they routinely revert IPs for something different from vandalism (or possibly BLP violations), they should be at least warned and possibly blocked for the reverts. If there is only this sock which is involved I would drop the case altogether.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ymblanter: The blocked IP gives diffs of the two reverts by W. The IPs reverted do not appear to be the same person as the blocked IP. As far as I know, W's editing restriction doesn't make exceptions for anything, including vandalism and BLP violations. Finally, if this is how everyone is going to react when W violates their restriction, why doesn't someone start a discussion proposing that the restriction be eliminated?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  Let me have a look of their contributions first and then respond. I am afraid there could be different scenarios here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  I checked their last 50 contributions and found one revert of an IP (which seems to be correct in terms of content, but this is not the point). I would say a short-term block would helkp. Since they edit only once in a couple of weeks, may be a two-week block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Ymblanter: Are you saying one revert in addition to the diffs of two reverts provided by the blocked IP?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Bbb23:, no, it is actually the first diff out of two diffs above. I wanted to understand what is a general context and what is the frequency of reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ignore I have no inclination to call for action on this post, given that it's raised by a (now blocked) anon IP, looking to impose a restriction that was called for originally by a (now blocked) prolific sock and harasser of Wtshymanski. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the last month or so of Wtshymanski's edits, and as far as I can tell the two diffs above are the only two examples of direct reversions of IP edits which violate the restriction in that time. In light of that I suggest a warning that the text of the restriction is to be taken literally (no reverts of IPs period) and that future reverts will result in a block. But the last block was a little over six months ago, and I don't believe that these two examples demonstrate a return to the previous disruptive pattern, and thus no reason to completely prevent a constructive editor from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I wrote in 2015:[253]

(In response to "Could someone who thinks WTS makes good content contributions, give a brief summary of those contributions?").

"I caution against the common "content creation is king, error fixers are second-class editors" attitute. That being said, less than two minutes of searching (I timed it) found these two:

• Taking a picture that most editors wouldn't know to take or how to describe the significance of and adding it to an aricle:[254][255]

• Copyediting an article and adding content that most editors would not be able to create: [256]

If anyone wants me to I will take a half an hour and find dozens more. The engineering articles need editors with engineering knowledge. I really don't want to lose Wtshymanski's productive contributions if we can find a way to stop him from constantly finding new ways to be disruptive and driving away other editors."

The bad news is that Wtshymanski has a long history of testing any boundaries the community sets, getting closer and closer to the line until someone notices and he gets blocked. The good news is that even a short block results in an immediate cesation of the behavior, and many months before he crosses the line again, often in new an creative ways. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And I was so enjoying the improved climate recently. Wikipedia was tolerable without sock puppet harassment. Too good to last. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, it is unfair that an IP-hopping sock is watching your every move looking for some error that he hopes ANI will club you with. Nothing about this case requires any admin action other than perhaps a mild caution about being more careful not to revert IPs.

On a related subject, there appears to significant support for not having the restriction at all. If you choose to request that the restriction be lifted, I will support that request. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Lift Wtshymanski's restriction

I'm broadly familiar with the underlying issue and the origin of the restrictions. However, as this thread proves, it seems to be unworkable and only exposes Wtshymanski to harassment. Editing restrictions are meant to reduce the amount of disruption, not to be a Damocles' sword over long-term editors' necks, and can only work if reporting is done in good faith and with concern to benefit of the encyclopedia. Both reverts provided here as evidence fall in the category of "revertable on the merits", and Wtshymanski provided a reasonable edit summary; had they been made by a registered user, they certainly wouldn't fall into the category of "blind reverting". Therefore, I propose that the Wtshymanski's editing restriction of reverting IPs be formally rescinded, and replaced with a formal warning that Wtshymansky may only revert IPs on the merits, and provide an edit summary, and that his return to the old ways will result in blocks or other sanctions. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer, obviously. No such user (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support agree that if the restiction is hurting the encyclopaedia rather than helping it, is intended, then the restriction is not fit for purpose. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support (but would be open to maintaining some lighter form of restriction, such as one against using rollback or reverts without informative edit summaries). The restriction was apparently passed because Wtshymanski once had a habit of being too quick in reverting IP editors irrespective of the merits of their edits. If the intention was to stop this behaviour, it has stopped, judging by the review of his recent editing. Going beyond this and trying to stop him from doing perfectly normal, reasonably-argued, occasional reverts in the context of legitimate editorial disagreements, which would be perfectly okay if he was facing fellow registered editors also, simply makes no sense, and I can't blame him for having occasionally disregarded a restriction that is so plainly nonsensical. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support: Nothing in Wtshymanski's history even hints at him returning to the behavior that resulted in the restriction. I have my disagreements with Wtshymanski, but I have always found him to be honest, to keep any promises he makes, and to consistently and in good faith do what he thinks best for the encyclopedia. He also has also always responded very well to even the shortest block, so why impose a long-term restriction when a 24-hour block would have had the exact same result? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, but with a requirement to use informative edit summaries, and a warning about not returning to his old behavior. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - this isn't working. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kend94

Following a recent block for adding unsourced and copyright material to articles including Syrians in the Netherlands, Kend94 has just added the unsourced statistics again, and then created a duplicate article at Syrians in the Netherland. I think we have competence issues here, with the editor clearly not understanding the message about what they're doing wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And subsequent addition of copyright material here. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the duplicated, copyviolating page. Can't do more right now (time constraints) but I'll check in again in one hour and consider further action unless somebody beats me to it...Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Final warning left along with an offer to advise the user on practice here.[257] Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Long term disruption from anon using 108.65..., 108.66..., 99.101...

An editor using IPs (with some repetition over time) has been vandalizing, trolling and, when blocked, evading blocks. The user tends to latch on to a few ideas for some time before shifting focus. Past and current interests have been Vi Hart, Q*bert, penis size (in various articles), Wikipedia:Wikipediholism test, claims that various things are banned or illegal (dominoes, numerous common numbers, Tetris), etc. While roughly 3/4 of their edits are or seem to be constructive (often dealing with geometry, coding and such), the rest are either unequivocally vandalism and/or trolling or indicate a WP:CIR problem. In the past two years, they have been blocked at least 20 times and evaded most of those blocks immediately. Has this been a registered account, they would have been indefed quite some time ago.

Vandalism, trolling or CIR, etc.: Special:Contributions/108.66.234.192, [[258]], [259], [260], [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], [270], [271], [272], [273], [274], [275], [276], [277], [278], [279] (see also Talk:Tetris/Archive 2#Legality), [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], [285], [286], [287], [288], [289], [290], [291], [292], [293], [294], [295], [296], [297], [298], [299], [300], etc.

Known prior blocks withing the past two years: 99.101.126.233, 108.71.122.12, 99.106.226.107, 99.104.4.100, 108.65.83.165, 99.101.126.89, 99.101.127.31, 108.66.234.192, 99.101.114.58, 99.101.112.238, 108.71.122.41, 108.71.120.222, 108.71.121.129, 108.71.120.43, 108.65.83.222, 108.65.81.159, 108.66.234.227, 108.65.81.68, 108.65.81.68.

Though the user's IP changes frequently, it is sometimes kept for a few days. I have identified roughly 100 IPs used over two years with perhaps a dozen of them being used in two time frames separated by several months. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

As the editor has been responding (though not constructively) on one of the IP talk pages, I have notified them of the discussion there.

While this is obviously a dynamic IP (often "helped" along to avoid a block), the reuse of several of the IPs and apparent rarity of other editors on those IPs seems to indicate there would be limited collateral damage from a range block. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I took a look at User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism trolling. It looks like the recent IP addresses used are:

• 108.65.80.0/22
• 108.66.232.0/22
• 108.71.120.0/22

There are also some older ones. On 99.101.112.0/22, the last activity seems to be around October 2016 in this edit. 99.104.4.0/22 and 99.106.224.0/22 don't seem to have any recent activity in the past year. I think a range block is doable on the first three. Most of the edits on these ranges fit the profile of someone obsessed with Wikipediholism, dominoes, Tetris, and penises. However, I'd feel better if someone double-checked my work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not necessarily make some of these edits. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff is also you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You did "not necessarily" make them? A number of your comments seem to be carefully constructed. Rather than saying you were not blocked and that you did not evade blocks, you stated that IPs are sometimes incorrectly accused of socking. Please state unequivocally which edits, if any, you did not make. Otherwise, it would seem that all of the vandalism shown is yours. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that I did not make some of those edits. This leads to confusion, and we can't tell whether to block or not. 108.66.233.174 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question. Which of the forty or so edits identified as vandalism above, if any, are you saying you did not make? (I assure you there are at least a hundred more, with a tiny sampling linked from User:SummerPhDv2.0/Wikipediholism_trolling.)

You also did not answer NinjaRobotPirate's question: is the Genghis Khan, Motion picture content rating system, and UTF-32 stuff also you?

Also, while this discussion continues, please stop adding "information" based on your obsession with penis size.[301] As there are significant questions regarding your truthfulness, I will continue to revert any and all unsourced edits. Grayfell seems to be following similar thinking. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not make the edits referring to geometry or coding. 108.71.121.28 (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The edits under Special:Contributions/108.71.120.43, Special:Contributions/108.66.233.169, Special:Contributions/108.71.120.245, Special:Contributions/108.71.123.175, Special:Contributions/108.71.120.222, Special:Contributions/108.65.81.159, Special:Contributions/108.65.82.240 and numerous others strongly suggest that you really aren't very good at lying. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, since the disruption seems to continue (including edit warring to blank an article), and nobody has objected, I'm going to do the three range blocks above. Because there are some constructive edits coming from this range occasionally, I'll start off short – just two weeks, which I think is lenient given the long-term trolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd editing behavior at User talk page

StylesClash18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
X!'s Tools for Page: Here

This user has been engaged in strange editing on their User talk page over an extended period of time. There have been several attempts to identify what is going on -- most recently by samtar, to which StylesClash18 removed it indicating there was some sort of issue with the welcome table. Prior to samtar's interaction, there were 27 reverts back and forth of the same content with in 9 minutes. Nick gave the user a warning prior to this, which they responded to again indicating some sort of editing issue with saving edits to the page. Unfortunately, that doesn't add up because to revert an edit, it has to be saved to the page - and reverting the same content back and forth would not change the way it displays.

Overall, the activity began on December 4, 2016 with reverting the same content back and forth. StylesClash18 made 181 edits to their talk page in the month of December 2016, largely reverts. In January 2017 at the time of filing this, StylesClash18 has made 321 edits to their talk page, which are mostly reverts. The time between reverts is an average of 18 seconds apart as shown on X's Tools. This user has not adequately explained why they are reverting their talk page, specifically the same content, back and forth repeatedly. It almost appears like some sort of bot or script is running. The only thing i've picked up on is that the user always ends with their edit count on an even, round number (ex. 3000, or as it stands currently, 4,550 edits). Outside of their talk page, they've made mostly wrestling related edits, removing, reorganizing and retitling sections with occasional grammatical changes.

WP:OWNTALK states that:

"While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia. User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively."

I believe the editor is not using their talk page in a manner that complies with that purpose. -- Dane ^talk 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kinda looks like some type of bot testing. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot usage: [...]

Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the user account and possible sanctions for the operator.

Administrators blocking a user account suspected of operating an unapproved bot or an approved bot in unapproved ways should block indefinitely.

Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check.

@Mlpearc Phone: Testing what exactly? User has been asked that many times and the user refused to give a fruitful answer. [302] [303] where user instead of giving a fruitful response tells me to leave the talk page. This violates the quote from above. Also mind that per above quote from the official bot policy, making automated edits without approval can be blocked indefinitely. This isn't a one off thing, it has been going on for months now. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How the heck am I supose to know, I just said what it looked like and you do not have to qoute policy to me. Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 00:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm guessing here, but I think I have an idea what's going on. They're making changes but whenever something doesn't work out the way Styleclash18 expects, they undo the edit. That may seem obvious to us but this user looks like they're thinking of UNDO like CTRL-Z in MS Word. If you click it enough times, it goes backwards to an earlier text change because UNDO keeps a small history of changes. Except, of course, Wiki UNDO just undoes the last edit. So what we're seeing is the Styleclash18 undoing the same edit over and over again whereas they might actually be trying to go back further but not realising that WP is only taking them back by 1 edit. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I may have believed that had it been only a few times, but this is consistent for over a month and the user has said they've "resolved it" several times with no obvious changes to the page other than users questioning it. Also worth noting, the user has confirmed socks: BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 per this diff which I became aware of after the AN/I post. -- Dane ^talk 02:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mlpearc Phone: I am sorry that wasn't an accusation, rather an observation on top of your observation.

@Dane: Given how the user revert wars with themselves and abruptly stops, there is no real change. They revert far too quickly even for word IMHO. They are also very quick to resolve talk page questions on their conduct. They could be WP:GAMEing the system though at this point I am unsure what is left to game - save for editcountitis for adminship.

-- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 10:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I should mention that they tried to remove this ANI discussion with the reasoning of this: "here is no bot being operated but there have been multiple problems with my talk page. These problems have been solved with assistance from multiple editors". JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I left them a final warning. A block for disruptive editing may be in order soon. Bradv 18:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My initial reaction would be to assume they're attempting to game ECP. Sam Walton (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To clear the issue up - I have edited the same pages as suspected sock puppets BigRedMonster12 and KOMania16 but I have no relation to these accounts at all. After considering the circumstances, I have decided not to retire but would appreciate other editor's co-operation. Simply, my talk page should be left alone, with no edits conducted by myself or other editors. I apologise for any inconvenience caused but my style of editing may differ to other editors. StylesClash18 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This does not clear up the issue. You still have confirmed sock puppets to you and you may not restrict the usage of your talk page the way you suggested (see the policy above). I have opened a sockpuppet investigation to look for any other socks that have not been declared here. -- Dane ^talk 03:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Since the issue cannot be solved, I am announcing my retirement. StylesClash18 15:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would note that you would have gotten less flack if you'd used your sandbox, although your editing pattern is probably a bit excessive even for that. As said above, you cannot bar allcomers from your talk page. BTW if you do decide to come back, note that your signature is not compliant with WP:Sig as it lacks any links to your user page, talk page or contributions page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

user Planktonium in John de Ruiter artikel

the John de Ruiter artikel is almost the only thing Planktonium endless edits and keeps systematically adding bad changings.

Deleting banner A and Deleting banner B

Adding promotion info: promo 1 and promo 2 and promo 3

Polishing out or deleting reference of lesser positive info f.e.:delete 1 and delete 2 and delete 3

Today Planktonium made already 9 edits, resulting in lots of reference errors on the artikel because of his reference changes. In Teahouse Planktonium accused me of being an litigants (for no reason) and askes to find my ip adres..

Could this user be blocked?

Can the banner he earlier deleted be brought back?

Can a thirth person check if it aint best to put the artikel back on edit-date 00:00, 19 November 2016‎ Zupotachyon?

Thx in advance, Richard Gooi (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That article is certainly a lovingly crafted advert for a lifestyle guru right now. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add "In naff brown plastic". Jokes aside, I threw out some extremely poorly sourced BLP, read the damn thing and concluded it's WP:PROMO, which leaves us with a SPA engaging in years of promoting this person, which, to my mind results in WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The more I look at this article the worse it looks. I just cleaned up some dead refs... turns out 6 dead references (under 4 different reference numbers) were actually all to the same fawning interview with John deRuiter. I managed to track down a live copy of the translation of the original, now hosted on John deRuiter's website. I'm almost afraid to poke the other references.

It appears to me that Planktonium is doing a bit of white washing here. He or she removed seemingly reliably sourced material with the invalid rationale that the links were no longer valid and has accused Richard Gooi of having a conflict of interest Talk:John_de_Ruiter#Edits. Note that Planktonium is an WP:SPA who has never edited outside of this topic in almost 5 years. Meters (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meters, your refering to the 6 Brummelman-interview refs which were earlier al correct links on 20:06, 7 October 2016 refering to a tiny article in a Magazine called: "Innerself Issue 27" But Planktonium changed it into dead-link to the Paravision magazine on 19:47, ref meshup 1 with promo and 20:50 of 16 January 2017 ref meshup 2

Planktonium is an SPA and started this artikel, it was almost totally deleted 4 years ago. Richard Gooi (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears to me that both the English user page version and the English Innerself version from 2012 are translations of the original Dutch ParaVisie interview from 2010. Thanks for pointing out my error wrt all the links being dead. I've struck that. Meters (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the report, User:Richard Gooi. You missed alerting the user to this ANI discussion; I've done it for you. The article is a biography of a living person, and those biographies are under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I could and would have topic banned the user from editing the article, if they had been alerted to the discretionary sanctions for BLPs. I've alerted them now, and if the promotional editing continues, I will ban them. Unless another admin blocks them per WP:NOTHERE first, which would not be unreasonable IMO. Richard Gooi and others, please feel free to re-report here, or simply tell me on my page, if the problematic editing continues and I miss it. Yes, the multiple issues banner can presumably be restored. I'd do it myself, except that I intend to warn the user about a possible topic ban, so I'd rather not get involved with editing the article in any way. Somebody else, perhaps? Guy? Do you think it's sufficiently improved now, so perhaps only the COI tag is needed? Bishonen | talk 10:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

At the moment there still some issues that been wite-wahed and some not so clear parts and prome bits, tomorrow I will look into that and cleanup. After that others can say if its okay. Richard Gooi (talk) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Worked on all issues, added two Oxford-scientific-refs. Only wonder if the 4CD-titels are Wikipedia suitable. I understand they are together with 340 more CD's like those for sale on his website. Since i already did some changes on this artikel, i let this decision left to some other editor if the present 4 CD titels should be on Wiki? Richard Gooi (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit war over failed verification

at Kingsley C. Dassanaike. I've fully protected for now, but don't have time to look into the failed verification. Is a BLP. Samsara 14:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reason why people feel the need to pound the revert button and calling other editors liars in edit summaries? I've never seen such a procedure resolve a dispute. I also don't see the information in the supposed source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, I've gone years without coming here, now I seem to be a regular visitor. You guys are swell and all, but I hope not to visit again for a while. My part is that the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingsley C. Dassanayake, closed and reopened, survived with clear consensus despite being put up for speedy within an hour of its creation, rather incessant tagbombing by Obi2canibe, and when those tags were addressed, tagbombing some more, and removal of information claimed by Obi2canibe to be what was lacking in the article. Now that it has survived, Obi2canibe is still being disruptive by tagging things like birthdate and place of birth, added by Sri Lankan editors. Sure it needs more sources, but tagging the article isn't going to fix anything, and based on his behavior through the debate, these are tags for sore-losing. If the community decides tags on every detail in the article are necessary, I will accept that from uninvolved editors, but from him it's a case of Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• [304] put up for speedy within an hour of its creation

To answer Jo-Jo Eumerus, there's a difference between editors who occasionally find themselves having to delete an article and those who revel in deletion. A look at their edit history will tell you which type is which. So, I'm one of those "people feel the need" because I have seen enough of these deletionists to have no more kindness or patience for them. Deletion is sometimes necessary, it should not be the first handy recourse for anyone edits Wikipedia.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo, do you dispute Obi2canibe's assertion that there is unsourced information in Kingsley C. Dassanaike; in particular, that there is information claimed to be in a given source which is in fact not there? Mackensen (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Mackensen, I dispute that tagbombing minutiae solves anything, especially from an editor who's been trying to delete the thing from step 1. Several editors put up both the place and date of birth, and a quick search of the Bronze Wolf list will show him as the only Sri Lankan, pointed out to me by Lankan Scouters who I have been in the process of getting sources from. I left his valid tag about the Braille-even in the AfD it was agreed that needs a better source, and I have written to the Ceylon School for the Deaf & Blind and the descendant org for the World Council for the Welfare of the Blind, no answer yet to either request. Somewhere in all the mess, (and it was an ugly AfD), the sources got scrambled and the proper cite for that "information claimed to be in a given source" should actually be --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I take that as a no, you don't dispute it. Mackensen (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mackensen:, my position is a bit more nuanced than the simplistic binary "dispute/don't dispute", whatever point you're trying to wring out of my answer.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Are you now admitting that the content wasn't referenced? If so, please retract all the instances where you've accused me of lying (1, 2, 3, 4). I and other editors can't read your mind - how are we to know that "the sources got scrambled"?

You need to WP:AGF and not assume that anyone who challenges you is involved in a grand conspiracy against the scouting movement. The only reason that I even knew of this article was because of your posting on WP:LK which I follow. When someone challenges you don't go into WP:BATTLEGROUND and blindly revert, assigning motives to their actions and using abusive language in edit summaries (1, 2, 3, 4). Step back and check your contributions - no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes.

I cannot verify the Ameresekere source but I shall WP:AGF and that it contains Dassanaike's date/place of birth and says that he was chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement. As an experienced editor you should know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we can't use List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award to verify that Dassanaike is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award. Please get the article unprotected (now, don't wait for the protection to expire in a week) and add the source in the appropriate places.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: The table in List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award is the same as the table at the official site of the World Scout Bureau, as indicated by the first footnote. The official table also says that this person is the only Sri Lankan to receive the award, so I think we can accept that. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• If I recall correctly, my first ever interaction with Drmies involved me tagging virtually every sentence in an unsourced article as needing a citation, and him reverting me before helping me fix the problem. He later called my initial act of mass-tagging "a bit POINTy" or something to that effect. Honestly, I think over-tagging, while it does look unattractive in the short term and has no doubt been abused by people who actually were behaving POINTily, is borderline acceptable. If an article lacks sources, tagging it in some fashion is always the right way to go; adding an inline tag at every point where one would expect, ideally, to find a citation is not always the best way to go about it, but it is much clearer than adding a single template to the top of the page, and makes clearing the article up easier, in my opinion. The above That editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag is almost certainly completely out of line; per WP:VOLUNTEER, no one is under any obligation to fix all the problems with any particular article themselves, and tagging (especially with some kind of in-line explanation using the "Reason=" parameter or invisible WP:COMMENTs) is making an effort, however small, to fix it. Removing tags without making any effort to address the underlying issues is inherently disruptive and always much, much worse than any act of mass-tagging. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: would not a simple {{refimprove}} at the top serve the same purpose? My entire objection is and has been Obi2canibe behaving POINTily, i.e. removing information he himself called for in the AFD [305] and replacing a spurious {{Copypaste}} tag to an already-fixed section [306]. Removing is not fixing/"making an effort", and tagging is not fixing/"making an effort" if one has an agenda or bias. Also, "much, much worse"? Really?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article to allow the discussed constructive changes to be applied. Samsara 03:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. A simple header would have perhaps been better in the 4+ years ago example I alluded to above, but in this case what you call "tagbombing" consists of four tags. Tagging specific content that is unreferenced or whose reference isn't sufficient is usually preferable to placing a tag at the top of the article that says nothing about exactly what refs need improving. You above complained that nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about and how the editor won't actually make any effort to fix it, but now you are complaining about the editor being too specific about what his problem is?

You are edit-warring to remove three "citation needed" tags and one "failed verification" tag because you think think the one "failed verification" tag was inappropriate? You are much closer to violating WP:POINT here than Obi2canibe, from what I'm seeing. Using the edit summary to accuse someone of "lying" (emphasis yours) is inappropriate in general, but if you are calling someone a liar at the expense of explaining 75% of your edit you are way out of line.

Even for the remaining 25% that you did mention in your edit summary, you are wrong to say that the source verifies the content to which it is attached: all the source says is that (1) he is from Sri Lanka, (2) he received a Bronze Wolf Award in 1973; if this has anything whatsoever to do with his serv[ing] as the Chairman of the Extension Scout Committee for handicapped Scouts of the World Organization of the Scout Movement it is not clear to me. Is the award presented to outgoing (or incoming) chairmen of that committee? Nine other people received the award in 1973, so that seems unlikely.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So on further examination it turned out that Kintetsubuffalo actually agreed with Obi2canibe that the reference failed verification, and replaced it with an offline ref that I can only assume actually verifies the content. This means that the edit-warring was even POINTier than I thought, and the amount of edit-content addressed in Kintetsubuffalo's edit summary was not 25%, but 0%. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

So wait, I thought we now had a ref that covered his DOB and place? Samsara 06:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is, if we have such a ref, it can (and should) be marked accordingly in the article. Samsara 06:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Umm... does that discussion belong on ANI? It's one thing if we don't have such a ref and there is an edit war going on over whether the specific lines should be tagged or a large tag should be placed at the top of the article (or if someone is repeatedly claiming that a source that doesn't verify the article content is enough, or is making baseless accusations in edit summaries, or some such), but ...

If the user conduct is off the table at this point then there's no point discussing article content here, and this thread should be closed.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I disagree with your approach here severalfold. Number 1, if there is an issue, let's resolve it and then close the thread, not break it up into a hundred different venues. Number 2, tags per article have only recently somewhat stabilised and remain at a relatively high level. All tag placement does is create a perennial backlog that, unless we change user attitudes, we have little chance of ever addressing. We are so far fortunate that, unlike the German Wikipedia, this problem has not yet spread to the pending changes mechanism, knock on wood. The blanket assertion that tag placement at any level is acceptable, which you've almost argued for, is not a good platform imo. On BLPs particularly, it is sensible to address sourcing issues asap. Assertions about birth place can be controversial and should be supported by a reference if possible. Samsara 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Number 1: ANI is not for article content disputes. If there is a user conduct problem here (and I'm not sure if there is or isn't) it's KB's removing maintenance templates that were not inappropriate and referring to three or four such templates as "tagbombing".

Number 2: That may be right as a general point, but in this case a ref was added inline that had no relation to the article content to which it was attached. I wish we could just remove such refs, but there are plenty of people who would edit-war endlessly over it. Tagging is the next best thing. A tag was added, and then removed with the bogus rationale that the source supposedly mentioned the name of the topic. If I speak to your concerns directly, then I can say that the difference between inline tags and header tags is that inline tags are super-easy to address and remove, whereas with a single "refimprove" template there is no way to know exactly what it is referring to and so no conceivable way to fully address the tagger's concern without talk page consensus.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Looking at this article again, I think my preference would be for the date and place of birth to be omitted unless they can be supported by a reference, and to be re-instated later when a reference has been obtained. Also, the Sinhalese braille claim is supported by two references further down the article - why can these not be used to support the same statement in the lede, rather than leaving the tag there? Samsara 07:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara:If I can <!-- hide them like this --> while seeking verification, I can go with that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: But why would you want to do that? If someone tagged something in an article I had recently written, and I wasn't able to immediately present them with the source, I would remove it. The one exception would be if it was from a borrowed book or the like, which I could no longer check on short notice, but which I was fairly certain fully verified the content, in which case I would give the name of the source. Normally, I would leave the tag in and visible, and add an <!-- invisible comment --> that clarifies that I probably got the information from a source that I couldn't check on short notice and includes enough bibliographic information that someone else could check it. But if you don't know where the information comes from, then it is unsourced, and has been challenged. Removing or tagging such information is very common, and in line with our core content policy; COMMENTing out the tags so they are only visible to people checking the source is an unusual practice, and frankly I've never seen it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I think that would be fine. I've made an edit suggestion that I think reflects this discussion. Anyone should feel free to revert if they find any mistake in it. Samsara 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samsara:Beat me too it, I did almost identical edits to yours, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about that, :) I wasn't sure if you'd prefer someone else to remove the tags, so I thought I'd do that. Happy editing! Samsara 11:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for your kindness through this!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that when I add three tags its WP:TAGBOMBING but when Kintetsubuffalo: adds two tags to the same article its OK. Given Kintetsubuffalo's WP:OWNERSHIP of the article and trigger happy reverting who here truly beliefs that he would have allowed me to add Template:Refimprove to the top of the article.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User DaveA2424

User DaveA2424 has a history of making Unsourced edits, Admin Oshwah warned them at one point here and their talk page was full of warnings, they cleared it after each warning was issued which can be seen in their history, for adding Unsourced material to the same article that I warned them about and other articles. They were adding Unsourced material to the WWE Hall Of Fame myself and User InFlamester20 warned them here. Dave decided to take it to my talk page instead of the article talk page and make it personal with me which can been seen here in my archives, note they never once went after the other user who warned them, Warnings I issued were via Twinkle. 2 other users LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy posted on my talk page to him about his behavior and posting Unsourced material on the article. NewsAndEventsGuy posted here on his talk page about his behavior, Dave ofcourse removed and then went to NewsAndEventsGuys talk here continuing his behavior. I said at that time if it continued ANI would be the next course of action. It has now been almost 2 weeks of no contact with him and suddenly he made it a point to once again bring his childish battlefield mentality to my talk page making no sense whatsoever about removing the conversation, which was archived not removed, and accusing myself and the other users involved of mob mentality and that we would be reported. Dave was then told once again not to post to my talk page with their childish behavior anymore. He then went into my archives and edited the archived conversation here with more childish behavior which as you can see by the history he went into my archives to edit it and post to my talk again and then again here while I was writing this ANI stating "I am perfectly within my rights when editing your archive" which is not true as it clearly states at the top of the archives This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. I was told I should bring it to ANI as Dave clearly has issues with working with others, following policies, and does not get that his behavior is uncalled for and it might be time for an Admin to get involved. In case it is removed, as he has a history of such, user was notified of the ANI here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I have seen some of this behavior on wiki but warnings were already issued when I saw it. I fully support an extended or indefinite block for the user due to their inability to work with others (Competence is required) and their battleground mentality. The editing of WarMachineWildThing's archives is also completely inappropriate. -- Dane ^talk 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

He's constantly threatened to report others but has been warned enough to know that he's the one on thin ice. Just today he suggested I might be a sockpuppet. The WP:BATTLEGROUND has been nonstop since I first encountered him.[307] LM2000 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As expected User removed the ANI notice and replaced it here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited my archive again here then reverted it here and is posting to my talk page again after being asked not to and after this ANI was filed. Dave clearly has no regards for policy and refuses to stop this behavior or acknowledge this ANI. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You clearly haven't viewed my latest Wikipedia interactions seeing as I just agreed to let another user have his/her way in order to avoid an edit war. If the administrators are going to be unprofessional and gang up against me as well, then there's nothing I can really do about that. In my opinion, I haven't done anything wrong here and several users have adopted a mob mentality against me, which I find unfair. I am also surprised that I was not contacted by an administrator to get my side of the story. It is clear that I am working with users who are willing to work with me and not simply team up against me to get their way. Also, I am perfectly within my right to remove topics from my talk page in order to make my page tidier. WarMachineWildThing continues to remove my posts from his talk page so why am I being ridiculed for doing the same? Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to state that I was unaware that editing archives was prohibited at first but then I saw the notice and removed my edition and reverted it to his talk page. That much I will apologise for because that was my mistake, but I refuse to be pushed around and teamed up on. If we can come to a peaceful solution or simply drop this then that's fine, but I'm perfectly happy to take this further seeing as I don't believe that I'm in the wrong here. DaveA2424 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dave has now left a fake ANI notice on my talk page. As LM2000 has already posted to this ANI how you accused him of being a sock here. You were warned per policy about placing unsourced material by 2 users and you chose to make it personal and continue this behavior, you then came to my talk page with your childish behavior and were asked NOT to post to my talk again and you then continued and then started editing my archives which it clearly states at the top of them is a no no. Nothing you posted was EVER removed it was archived like every other conversation on my talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake ANI". Also, I have never called anyone a "sock". The only reason that you didn't want me to post on your talk page is because you didn't want me to have my say on the matter. Some of what I have posted on your talk page has not been archived under the WWE Hall of Fame section of your archive. If you would like to read what I said, I apologised for editing your archives because, at the time, I hadn't seen the notice and was unaware that editing archives wasn't allowed. I owned up to that being my mistake. You seem determined to drag this on further than it needs to be, which is fine by me because, in my opinion, you're way out of line here. I'm going to bed now. Goodnight, gentlemen. DaveA2424 (talk) 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You left an ANI notice on my talk page that was fake, you don't leave ANI notices unless you filed one which you didn't. Again every post you made is in my archive and history nothing was removed it can all be seen, you were asked NOT to post 4 times to my talk page because of your childish behavior and battlefield mentality. You were asked to stop by LM2000 and NewsAndEventsGuy. You were warned per policy for adding unsourced material to an article via twinkle, which your history shows you have been warned about before, and you didn't like it so you then made it personal with me starting with calling me an idiot. You are clearly not here to work with others as you have continued with the same behavior even here on this ANI. You still refuse to acknowledge you have been wrong in this whole situation which shows you don't care. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You're mistaken that you need to be the filing party to leave ANI notices. Anyone is free to leave ANI notices if they are appropriate and have not already been left. Since leaving them is a requirement, the filing party is normally the primary person who should leave them, but plenty of people miss the the big warnings or misunderstand them. In addition, some people are concerned over topic bans. In these cases, it's common for someone else to leave them. In addition, it isn't uncommon that a person will bring up the behaviour of another editor in a thread that has already been started. In these cases, if the editor is not already a participant in the thread, leaving them is required rather than just being acceptable. Since you were the person who started this discussion, there was no need to leave an ANI notice relating to it so it probably shouldn't have been done. However that doesn't make it a fake ANI notice. Such a concept doesn't make much sense. I guess you could say an ANI notice is fake if it refers to a non existant thread or if the person has not been mentioned in ANI at all, but that's different and it's still IMO a bit confusing to call them fake ANI notices. Nil Einne (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically a man of few words but figured I should add my two cents. I do give credit to DaveA2424 for apologizing regarding editing archived talk pages, however, I have not seen an apology for not adhering to WP:CIVILITY by, among other things, repeatedly calling WarMachineWildThing an 'idiot' without provocation. DaveA2424 blanking his own talk page during ongoing discussions while failing to archive them also seems odd to me. At the risk of giving credence to DaveA2424's belief that everyone is 'ganging up on him', I agree with and support statements made by WarMachineWildThing, Dane and LM2000. InFlamester20 (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

In case it wasn't already obvious, I don't sit on Wikipedia all day, every day. Therefore, there are things that I am new to and am unclear about. I still don't understand why you think that me blanking my talk page is some kind of attempt to cover my trails. It's all there in the history. I am fully aware of that. The only reason that I did it is so that I can easily view unread posts. If that's not something that's usually done then that's fine but the fact that you keep implying that I'm trying to hide something is puzzling to me. I also was unaware that archiving talk pages was even a possibility. The reason that I reacted in the way that I did is that I felt like my efforts to improve the WWE Hall of Fame page were not appreciated as the user simply removed everything that I had spent time on without a care in the world. He then continued to use language such as "warning" me, threatening to report me and so on. If you had been friendlier about this from the start, then none of this would have been an issue. Then, all of his little buddies joined in and started harassing me and backed me into a corner, which I thought was unfair and so I wasn't going to stand for it. Do I recognise that unsourced material isn't allowed? Yes, I do, but I wasn't clear on what exactly needed to be sourced and what didn't. I stopped trying to add Diamond Dallas Page to the 'To Be Inducted In 2017' section after I saw that users had deemed my editions to be unacceptable. Then, when adding Kurt Angle to that section last night, I conceded in a debate with others over which of his WWE Recognised Accolades should be included in order to avoid an edit war. That was because the user politely explained to me their point of view instead of getting a group of his friends together and harassing me like WarMachineWildThing did. At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but to suggest that I'm not willing to work with others and abide by the rules to the best of my ability is laughable. I look forward to seeing which of your friends turns up next to have his say at my expense. DaveA2424 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing you've got right is that you have the right to delete nearly anything from your own talk page. Just as other editors have the right to do so for their talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with him removing posts from his talk page. What I don't understand is why he ridicules me for doing it and then does it himself. DaveA2424 (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424, WarMachineWildThing - I think you're both getting off-track regarding the original issue that started the dispute between you two (which are the content-related concerns at WWE Hall Of Fame). This back-and-fourth arguing over editing each others' talk pages, removing of content on each others' talk pages, editing each owns' talk pages, etc - are not only over things that are easy to resolve, but are just going to result in the actual issue never getting discussed and the dispute properly resolved.

First of all, it's completely appropriate for an editor to remove warnings, messages, content - whatever they want from their own user talk page. While DaveA2424's style of "marking his user talk page messages as read" isn't the usual way (nor is it generally the preferred way) to handle messages on his talk page, it's completely within his right to do if that's what he wants. While user talk page archives generally shouldn't be edited, it appears that DaveA2424 was unaware of this - can we please give him the benefit of the doubt and move on from this? :-)

Moving on to the root issue at hand... DaveA2424 - You state in your message to WarMachineWildThing that you were eventually going to add references and cite them with this content. If you're adding content to an article and have references that you're going to cite as well, why add the content without also adding the reference with the same edit? Doing so will help with the confusion and frustration that occurred here. I also see in the article's history that other editors have reverted changes you made, expressing different content-related issues and concerns. Have you started or discussed these issues on the article's talk page? While I see on the talk page history here that you've contributed there, I don't see much discussion over all issues at hand, nor does it appear that any of them have come to a consensus. Instead of blowing up at other editors as you've been doing, you need to start discussions or participate in the existing discussions on the article's talk page and make sure the discussions that involve the content you're attempting to add comes to a consensus before you add them back.

Lastly, DaveA2424 - I will note that your collaboration with other editors such as here, here, here, here, here, and here - are not acceptable ways to communicate with others and are in violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, as well as Wikipedia's policies on making personal attacks at others. I understand that you're frustrated and perhaps upset over this dispute, but calling other editors "idiots" (as one example) is not a positive way to resolve the issue at hand. I also don't understand what you mean when you refer to administrators acting unprofessionally, or other editors ganging up on you (as you said here and on other pages). I don't see where other editors and administrators are behaving unprofessionally, nor am I seeing where they're "ganging up" on you or hounding you. The only editor I've seen behave unprofessionally or engage in "hounding" is you. Even when another editor (NewsAndEventsGuy) stepped in to warn you about your civility and your collaborative behavior here, you then started to act uncivil towards him (diff). This also came after the initial response you made on NewsAndEventsGuy's user talk page (here), where you seemed to blame the incivility he warned you about on WarMachineWildThing's initial warnings. While the warnings that WarMachineWildThing left on your user talk page may explain your recent uncivil interactions, it certainly does not excuse them. DaveA2424 - from here on out, you are expected to collaborate with other editors in a civil manner and you are to stop making personal attacks towards other editors. If this behavior continues towards these editors or any other editors involving this issue or dispute, or during the course of this dispute, you will be blocked from editing for incivility.

In the end, everyone needs to shakes hands over the "talk page tit-for-tat" issue that was going on, move the content related discussion to the article's talk page, and come to a resolution peacefully. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that I am the only user that you have ridiculed here. Like I said, if it wasn't for other editors being hostile towards me and ganging up against me then I would not have responded in the way that I did. Your response to me is basically that I can sit here and take their abuse or I can get blocked. That doesn't seem fair to me. Any time that an editor has approached me in a respectful manner about an issue, I have responded in kind. I respect that you're trying to resolve the issue but I still can't help but feel like you're taking sides here. Everyone keeps berating me for things like removing content from my talk page and accidentally omitting parts of an edit before making a follow-up edit to rectify those omissions. Like I said, I'm new to this. I'm still learning, so I think that you could cut me some slack in that regard. If users are respectful towards me, then I will be respectful towards them. It's that simple. With that said, if it helps, I will make a conscious effort to be more patient with those who undo my edits and whatnot, whether they are correct in doing so or not. DaveA2424 (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424 - Can you please provide me with URLs to exact diffs that show me where other editors or administrators have acted unprofessionally or in an uncivil manner towards you? Can you provide me with exact diffs that show "hounding", personal attacks, battleground conduct, or other civility violations from other users? I'd like to take a look at them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I would love to but, unfortunately, I have no idea how to do what you're talking about. Like I said, I'm relatively new to this. DaveA2424 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Check the history of a given page, and find the item where a given edit was made, select the (prev) link, then copy-and-past the URL for it. For example, this is the diff for the edit you made immediately above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Diff help age will also be of assistance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC) - See the help page that Bishonen provided below. It's much easier to understand than the one I provided.

Oshwah, I don't understand the Diff help page myself. A new user, as well as most of the rest of us, had much better consult the Simple diff and link guide. Bishonen | talk 23:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC).

Good call Bishonen! Redacted my previous response. The help page you provided will be much better suited for him to read. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424 - Just checking in. Have you managed to review the document that Bishonen provided and locate those diff URLs? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah I have stayed on the point of this ANI which was incivility and continued hounding about this, if Dave would have stopped like he was told by everyone involved we wouldn't be here.I never edited his talk page except to issue warnings.I NEVER went to his talk adding or removing anything . This was not a dispute between 2 users either other editors were involved with his addition of Unsourced content and warned him about it as well, yet he chose to single my talk out. I was never uncivil and told him several times to add the source when he edited which he couldn't because there were none.

Dave no one disrespected you, you were warned per policy for placing unsourced material 3 times by 2 users and you decided to become uncivil to me which you were warned about by 2 other users on my talk and continued the behavior afterwards which lead us here. There was no mob as you have accused as this was the first time I ever had interaction with NewsandEventsguy and InFlamester20. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Taking what I say and simply arguing the opposite with little to no justification is getting us nowhere. You think that I wasn't disrespected? That's great, but I disagree. You think that there was no mob mentality? Again, that's great, but I disagree. I'm not sure why you're so determined to drag this out. I really don't have time for this childish, back-and-forth nonsense. DaveA2424 (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My last post on the matter as I'm not wasting anymore time trying to explain this to someone who clearly doesn't get it and refuses to acknowledge their uncivil behavior which is and has been the POINT of this ANI from the beginning and continues to make false accusations. Not one user was uncivil or disrespectful to Dave at any point but he was to others IE: No one called him an Idiot, No one abused him as he has claimed in this ANI, There was no mob mentality and no one ganged up on anyone, No one blew up his talk page with uncivil behavior and being repeatedly told to stop, no user edited his talk page except to issue standard warnings per policies, you violate policies you get a warning IE: adding unsourced material. We've all gotten one at some point. User continues to be uncivil and has a battlefield mentality which each user involved in this ANI has agreed on, the matter was over as far as I was concerned until Dave made it a point to start it up again after almost 2 weeks, hence this ANI. An Admin can handle it from here however they see fit as clearly anything said here by users involved is mob mentality. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, all that you're doing is taking what I'm saying and stating the opposite, which results in the same childish, back-and-forth nonsense that gets us nowhere. You have been asked repeatedly to drop the talk page conversation in order to focus on issues that are more resolvable and yet you refuse to do so. You feel that I haven't been disrespected and that there hasn't been a mob mentality. I'm not sure what you didn't understand about this when I said it the first time, but I disagree. You can continue to drag this on all you want but we're simply going around in circles here. You're ridiculing me for bringing something up after two weeks but, again, I don't spend hours of every day on Wikipedia like you do so I didn't see you and your friends harassment until two weeks later and I was, quite frankly, appalled to see the kind of mob mentality that I'd expect to see from schoolchildren. DaveA2424 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

wow, kudos Oshwah for careful review and analysis. I suggest adding "disruption" to the list of Dave's issues and blocking for one week in hope he'll take that time to read the various policies we have been citing. I say 'disruption' because one of the signs of disruption is not answering questions and Dave has been asked for DIFFS showing existence of ganging up on him, disrespecting him, etc. Nadda nope nothing. Instead he continues to tit for tat with the same vaguely cast aspersions. Our WP:Blocking policy states that blocks are only to PREVENT future problems. If a weeks time out to review our policies was ever needed its here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC) LATER (and after Admin Oshwah posted his threaded reply to what I now strike out).... Apologies to DaveA2424 (talk · contribs)... I should have looked at the time of your mid thread comment asking how to post diffs. I now see that was your last post in the thread. Since two earlier posts of yours appear below that remark I assumed they had been made after you were asked for DIFFS. The general guideline is new remarks go below and I lost track. It was my misreading of the chronology that led me to believe there was a continuing problem. My bad, and I'm sorry Dave. A lot of good advice has been made available to all editors in this thread. Those interested in improving the original article can get back to effective work if they act on all this feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy - Thank you for the kudos and for the input. While the evidence shows clear incivility from DaveA2424, as well as a history with being warned for adding unferenced and poorly referenced content to articles, blocking him at this point would not be a preventative measure and would be inappropriate per Wikipedia's blocking policy. So long as the incivility and personal attacks stop, the content dispute/discussion is moved to the article's talk page and remains peaceful and content-related, and no edit warring or other disruption starts to come about, I see no reason to consider any blocks at all. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Which, for the record, it would be reeeeaaallly really nice to not have to use that damn button :-). I hate having to block editors over civility and content-related disruption... especially in situations like this - where two or more editors, who obviously seem passionate about expanding the project and making it better, clash with one another as a result and become frustrated and angry at one another. I try to give 110% into trying to diffuse the situation and help guide those in dispute towards the right direction. Having to resort to blocking, to me, means I've failed at my job... which is to set an example, be the neutral party, show leadership, and diffuse heated situations and help them work things out. If doing so becomes needed as the only option to prevent disruption and allow positive collaboration and consensus-building to resume, I won't hesitate to do so and I won't stray an inch... but it doesn't mean I like doing so... I'd really much rather help them work things out than to have to go that route. :-( ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that as far as I see, the above commenting about diffs follows expected behaviour per WP:Indent. Replies don't always go below all other replies when they are properly indented. Nil Einne (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

UNSC Luke 1021

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

---

• UNSC Luke 1021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

UNSC Luke has been warned many times to "stop messing around." He seems to enjoy gaslighting people, doing things that should obviously not be done, and then feigning ignorance. When it started out with his RFA, most AGF as they are supposed to, believing it to be merely a newer user that was eager. After this, and several other questionable actions at RFA, he was given a short ban (see here), and appealed it for a 1 year topic ban from RFA, asking for "one more shot" (see here). At this point too, most AGF, thinking that it was just a newer user who made a mistake. However he later admitted that the RFA was a prank. (see here), and that he wished to "game the system to see people's responses. (See here. The pranks (or serious incompetence) became more blatant, he soon after moved his talk page to a name he wished to have. (See here) he then put a joke about how you could go to his talk page from his userpage, but not the other way around. (See here). The move was quickly reverted by Floquenbeam, who, echoing the words of many other admins, told him to "stop f-ing around", (see here) he again claimed ignorance, claiming that he had no idea what he had done wrong. (See here). He later contradicted himself, saying he had tried to move the userpage, but wasn't able to. (See here.) Floquenbeam quickly pointed out that he should have clearly seen that he couldn't move it, as per the bright red letters on the top. (see here.) Floquenbeam issued him a last warning (one of the many he has been given). It again became more blatant he was trolling when he posted the entire content of the bee movie into his talk page (revision deleted per copyvio guidelines). He was swiftly warned (see here.) He again feigned total ignorance, claiming he didn't know what they were talking about (see here.) And later stating that he didn't know the entire script of a movie would be copyrighted. (See here.) I questioned if he happened to be under the influence of a mind altering substance (see here, as that seemed to be the only possible way to AGF, given the circumstances. He denied that he was under any such influence. (See here.) It has rapidly become clear that Luke is either playing long term pranks, doing stupid things and then feigning innocence for his own amusement, or is guilty of serial incompetence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User has been notified (see here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, I've replaced all the mobile links above with non-mobile ones -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion (UNSC Luke 1021)

I was just about to write something over on that talk page, but I'll write it here instead : Iazyges, asking if somebody is on drugs sounds like a variant of "have you stopped beating your wife" and was not a particularly nice question to ask. However, Luke is just being far too disruptive and I believe WP:COMPETENCE is the root cause of it. I think for now we should settle for a stiff warning that any more shenanigans will be met with an indefinite block. That should do the trick. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand how it can be seen negatively, I asked it because I saw it as the only reasonable way that he could not know what he did wrong. Another reason why I brought it here is that he has been given several last warnings, only to cross the line again and be given another. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You can add to the pile him leaving a message on The Rambling Man 's talk page to "let him know what's been going on" TRM's own talk page, and then continuing to reply even after the obvious is pointed out to him. Diffs are on Luke's talk page; I'll add them here when I'm in a better position to do so. –Grondemar 15:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The basic conversation is here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• this puts this storm in a star fort into perspective [308], though to be fair he was not alone in this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I can understand some of the other things I did wrong and I am sorry, but how is the possible name change of 'star fort' an issue? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

it's not wrong, but was making a mountain out of nothing (and no it was not about the move, but making an issue of how long we should wait). This (along with the fact you have (to my mind) pestered the military forum over this) just seemed to fit the pattern of treating this as a bit of a joke. As I said it put your "assertiveness" into perspective.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Given the objections to his ban from RFA included 'he is just going to be disruptive elsewhere'... and now he is disruptive elsewhere, would an admin kindly show him the door. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• He's a young editor messing around, but also still actually trying to build up the encyclopedia in my mind. Give him a very strongly worded final warning that Wikipedia is not an internet forum to mess around on, and if something happens later, he can be blocked for either a definite or indefinite period of time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he has been given a very strongly worded warning by a near-dozen admins and a few other users, and had persisted. He has also already been blocked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• For the record (and disclosure) the question which led to Luke's 8-day block was posted on my RFA. I didn't find the question particularly disruptive but I declined to comment on what happened afterwards while my RFA was open for reasons that should be obvious, but I was awfully disappointed (then and still) that it led to Dennis Brown quitting the project. Luke's variety of !innocent trolling and !gentle pushing of the community's tolerance is going to continue to cause the sort of problems that require long discussions and tedious cleanup, and he's already been warned by several users that Wikipedia is a serious endeavour, not a social experiment. I propose a one month block to prevent further disruption of this sort. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh and a filet o' fish for Iazyges for explaining with intoxication what could have been easily explained with incompatible motive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

That's my first time getting hit with a trout, I will say that I was extremely doubtful he would say yes, regardless of if it was true. It was the only way to AGF. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I believe we're dealing with an editor of some mixed interest here; that is sort of here sort of not here. I think he is both "having fun" and trying to contribute, but, with some competence issues. We always have options. Would WP:MENTORSHIP be suitable? rather than an indef block. Is anybody willing to mentor UNSC Luke, and more importantly, is Luke willing to undergo mentorship? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am very doubtful they will, some of our best admins warned him many times, some even going out of their way to help when it was quite obvious he knew what he did wrong. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude:@Iazyges:, I would be extremely willing to undergo mentorship if that would solve the problem. I'm not joking, I don't like to cause problems and I am sorry for what I've done. I'll do whatever you recommend I do, but I actually like to contribute to articles and I especially like adding new content that wouldn't be there if not for my additions. I'll undergo mentoring whenever you want but I really don't want to be banned because I like the site and don't want to fall into the horrible world of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry just to continue editing a lot. In fact, I'll stay away from anything non-mainspace entirely if you want. I'll only leave the mainspace when notifying users of edit reversions or vandalism. I swear. I will not object to a permanent ban if I break this promise. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

May I kindly suggest, that if you are given a temporary block of any length, that you swear off the idea of sockpuppetry right now. Most editors will take grave exception to the suggestion that you will take up sockpuppetry to continue editing the encyclopaedia instead of accepting the block and returning once it has been lifted. At this moment it appears that consensus is leaning towards a 1 month block. I am going to sleep and will respond further tomorrow. Apologies that there will be a delay. You caught me on the tail end of my wakefulness. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not trying to use sockpuppetry as leverage but rather as supporting information and for that reason I will not accept this offer unless a different trade off is thought up as to what I will do on my part. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:UNSC Luke 1021 I will be brutally honest with you. I, and probably many others, don't believe you. I was there when you asked for a second chance after getting banned, you then got 3 more warnings (Moving talk page, harassment, and copyvio). It would seem to me that you will never actually follow through. You had mentorship, patient zero was more than patient with you, offering advice and assuming good faith to the point I honestly worried about him (believe he is male, could be wrong). You have driven away a very valued editor with your empty promises. For these reasons I am doubtful that any significant number of people believe you want to change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also add that your statement of not wanting to fall into the world of sock puppetry sounds like a threat. I would recommend you remove it if you want anyone to try and support or mentor you. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and I can understand why nobody would believe me. I played games in the past and screwed with the system as well as with people. I understand that the sockpuppetry thing can sound like a threat despite it having a different intent. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Site Ban - This user admits that he is playing games, trying to take advantage of our assumption of good faith, and has been warned. Occasionally the Wikipedia community is too patient. (That's also the case with a few open cases above, but this is this and they are that.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I could 'support a one month block for disruptive editing as a sanction to let him reflect. I'm opposed to anything indefinite or a site ban. Mentorship would be the best option, and I would prefer that, but if consensus could be developed around a one month block I would not oppose it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Another editor once said "AGF is not a suicide pact" in reference to just this sort of situation (would link if I could remember where that was written). Still, I think that Luke probably can reform but needs a pretty clear message that the community is fed up with their games. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Link is Wikipedia:Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh it was Jimbo who said it. Some other editor indeed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• So lets get this right, his contribution are so valuable that leniency towards him has driven experienced eds (and admins?) away?Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• WP:Our social policies are not a suicide pactSlatersteven (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban. There have been about 20 last warnings. Making that number 21 won't do anything. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 16:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site Ban - I'm usually all for second, third and even fourth chances however this is just ridiculous!, I don't know if they're trolling or whether it's just incompetence but either way warnings and blocking temporarily don't and won't work - I believe somewhere on the site (as noted above) he did state now he was banned from RFA he was gonna disrupt elsewhere instead which at the moment he's staying true to his word on, Enough of the communities time has been wasted on them and wasting more (by mentoring, last warnings, temp blocks etc) will be a waste of time. –Davey2010^Talk 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Davey2010: please could you provide a diff where Luke "did state now he was banned from RFA he was gonna disrupt elsewhere". If such a diff is not available, you should strike the claim, as accusations without evidence are not helpful, especially in this forum. A person making a specific statement that they are intentionally going to disrupt the encyclopedia (as opposed to just showing obvious competence issues and repeated silliness) is a very serious claim, in fact it's one of the most serious claims that can be made as regards to an editor's intentions towards the project. MPS1992 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hi MPS1992, I'm 97% sure it was said however I couldn't say where or when it was said so I've unstruck, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Seeing that this is going the way of some sort of sanction, and that a definite final warning is looking unlikely, I believe a one month block would be more appropriate. I struggle to understand how the editor believes their actions are correct, and every little incident makes WP:CIR more and more applicable but I hope that a "line in the sand" can be drawn. Of course, any further disruption after this block would be met with an indef -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 16:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

A line in the sand/Last warning has been issued by: Floquenbeam, Grondemar, Ramaksoud2000, and myself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Disappointing to see sock-puppetry was considered - please consider my proposal for a temporary block retracted. Luke - read my email thoroughly, we'll see how this thread goes and take it from there. I'm not sure if there's anything you can say now which will change people's minds -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 20:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't normally like supporting any proposal to block editors who show any sign of good-faith editing, however whilst I can't quite bring myself to support an indef block, I do think (bearing in mind the claimed age of the user appears to be relatively young) perhaps that a one-month block combined with a supportive message on their Talk explaining the rationale, and what not to do once unblocked, will get the message across without alienating Luke from the project completely, which would be a shame (albeit I'd reluctantly support an indef block if there's further disruption after this one). Mike1901 (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support one month block per Samtar. I was open to this above, but might as well formalize it. I am still very much opposed to an indef block or site ban at this time. If a one month block happens and they continue being disruptive after that, indef is the way to go, but I don't think it is now. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support site ban okay, yeah, all but saying that he would sock if blocked makes me feel like a fool for trying to assume good faith here. I really don't know a worse possible way to respond to this. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• I hate to say this, but support site ban, per "AGF is not a suicide pact". At least I bleeping tried. Now he's testing everyone. I'm all up for multiple chances, and I know he's young - but his behaviour is getting to the point where he can't be helped or guided down a different path. I tried to get him into AV work, and now I feel as if I've completely wasted my time. God, I assumed good faith to the point where I'm sure most people thought I was completely insane to do so. I've given up trying. rant over, sorry if this looks like my feelings got the better of me. But good grief. Patient Zero^talk 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand, you did some truly commendable work in trying to mentor him, but sometime people will just not change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Iazyges, I appreciate that. You're right, some people don't change, no matter what we do to try and help them. Patient Zero^talk 17:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Floq's proposal looks good, but I don't like the suggestion of only blocking him for two weeks. He's already been blocked for WP:DE, and he tested Dennis' patience to the point where he quit. Something more serious needs to be done. I get the comments about his age - he claims to be a high-schooler, which suggests to me that he is between one and three years younger than me - but even us young editors can be mature and act like adults, on a website designed mainly for them. He's had too many chances; he we can always let him apply "parole" that is the Standard Offer, in six months' time, if need be. TLDR version: I still stand by my comments in which I said I would support a site ban. Patient Zero^talk 09:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

As I read the post where the user quite he seemed more exasperated at the leniency being shown towards UNSC. As much as (if not more so) the the users actions. Yes it was this case that drove him away, but it was the actions of over protective admins (and UNSC is not alone it getting this kind of treatment) that was the issue.

Soapboxing alert

Maybe some admins (not just in this case) need to look at how they protect and nurture bad behavior. Each time users like UNHC get away with it another user thinks they can, there is a knock on effect.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support six-month block. I don't think, based on the previous 8 day block related to RFA, that one month is long enough to send the right message. I think an indefinite block or site ban is too harsh despite everything. If the consensus is to ban Luke, I'd like there to be a provision where he can appeal in six months. Maybe after another school semester Luke will be ready to return with a little more maturity. If not, we can always ban him then. –Grondemar 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support indef. Responding to this thread by threatening sockpuppetry if blocked? Enough time has been wasted on Luke's trolling. Goodbye. –Grondemar 18:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Confirming that I still support an indefinite block despite the withdrawal of the socking threat. I think a formal site ban—requiring community consensus to revoke—is overkill, although I can see the rationale. There is merit in some of Floquenbeam's suggestions or the idea of mentorship, although I think these should come after a minimum of six months away from the project, and only as conditional to an administrator lifting the indefinite block. –Grondemar 23:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef on the understanding that if he successfully appeals, any goofing around on his return will lead to a permanent community ban. I was the one who mare the topic-banning him from one area will just mean he goes and disrupts something else comment referenced above, and this is exactly what has come to pass. (You can add his ramblings at WP:ITN/C to the list as well.) If he actually has something useful to bring, it's more than outweighed by now both cleaning up the messes he makes, and calming down frayed tempers owing to his trolling. (If he's not trolling, his competence issues are severe enough that we don't want him.) ‑ Iridescent 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban - Every possible route of reconciliation has been exhausted.--WaltCip (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Did they really just threaten to sock? That should be an automatic indef block similar to Wikipedia:No legal threats.--WaltCip (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WaltCip he has retracted it. Wether it is still punishable is above my pay grade. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef. Indefinite does not mean infinite; it's actually more open to appeal than a timed block, if and when he decides to participate positively. Trolling RfA is not a good sign; he's had several final warnings and one block; he even exhausted Dennis Brown's patience. Enough is enough, but I can't support a ban. Who knows what he'll be like in 6 months? People can change. But he will need to demonstrate that he has. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Site ban I've had questions about this editor for a while, and it appears that they simply don't have the mindset, or the maturity to work collaboratively. This comment here: "I like the site and don't want to fall into the horrible world of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry just to continue editing." clinches it for me. Maybe the WP:SO down the line, maybe, but for now, no this has to stop and stop for good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Indef or 1 year site ban I came across this editor when they were very new and trying to do NPP. They had some problems but I felt they were genuinely interested in the project and willing to learn. Since then their talk page has been on my watchlist and I have seen them 'screw around' and apologize time after time. This editor either is trolling or, in my opinion, rather young and simply not mature enough to realize the disruption their inappropriate behavior is causing. Because of this I would be willing to see them have a 1 year time limited ban in case they just need some time to mature. This is contingent on them retracting the implication they made that they would SOCK if banned or blocked. I am firmly opposed to another "final warning" - they have had more than enough of those. Jbh^Talk 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited: So they have a better chance of getting acceptance for the mentoring proposal below once they have taken a few months off. 02:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Notice from User in Question - I am sorry for what I said. I was not trying to use sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry as a threat or as leverage but rather as a... I don't even know. I am not going to sock should I get banned. I will not sock if I get banned. I was a fool and a shithead to say that and I'll stop making comments now. I'll let this thing run it's course and I won't make anymore controversial statements. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @UNSC Luke 1021: I see you removed your socking "threat" [309] by removing the text from your comment. You should replace the text and strike through it using <s></s> so people who read this thread know what everyone was discussing. See WP:REDACT. Jbh^Talk 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• 3 month block. The silliness and over-excited testing of boundaries has got out of hand, and is disrupting other editors' work. A site ban or indefinite block seems disproportionate; as thoughtfully noted by another editor above, the editor clearly does have constructive contributions to make, and intention to help, just is not managing it well at the moment. Willingness to undergo mentoring is also a positive sign, and I am sure something could be arranged after a 3 month break to take on board that this is a serious project not a playground. A disproportionate remedy here as a sort of "revenge" for the decisions of another user after an incident where Luke was involved, is -- quite obviously -- not appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

He has already had mentorship, as mentioned above several admins and experienced users went out of their way to help him. I'm confused as to your last bit, what decision and user are you referring to? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, how long was the mentorship allowed to proceed before expecting results? From his talk page I can see a couple of mentions of emails being sent that he hadn't seen yet because he was at school, is that what you had in mind? The user I had in mind was Dennis Brown, mentioned specifically by two of the users proposing sanctions above, and perhaps in the minds of many of the others. Although I too have great admiration for Dennis' work, I really don't think that Dennis is the sort of person who would be made happier with the project just because some other user got banned. MPS1992 (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Well: the socking threat- such as it was- has been revoked; with quite a mature comment. The cynics will perhaps point to more gaslighting. But- this seems a shame. After all, second ninth chances are at home here here if nowhere else. I'm just thinking of [will remain unnamed] who have pushed the envelope far deeper than this, and yet we still rejoice in their presence (or, at least, have done for longer!). I'm sure there is potential. Although of course finding it- is another page. I think I'd urge discretion in any award of punishment here. But. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban until they grow up and show some maturity. Constantly final warning them without consequence is like telling your naughty child "you better behave or else" without the "or else" ever happening. Blackmane (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• 6 month block This is a cryin' shame, because Luke can be a very productive editor. Unfortunately Luke has exhausted all patience, and it is glaringly obvious that "final warning" after final warning doesn't work. I don't support a longer block because of Luke's age, and this is sufficient time to be preventive in the long-term as 6 months is a lot longer at his age than it is at mine. Upon first violation of the Luke's block, this should be turned into an immediate site-ban. If Luke completes the "time-out" without issue, his return should be on probation in that that any instance of "social experimentation" within 1-year of his return should also result in a site-ban. This is not intended to be punitive, it is intended to clearly demonstrate to Luke that his actions have resulted in him being a net-negative, and that we want him here, but only as a productive, trustworthy participant. He can demonstrate his trustworthyness by leaving the project in peace for 6 months. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef or site ban. People have given him enough benefit of the doubt, in fact far more than most receive and by better editors than most receive. There's a deliberate sense of mischief here, especially as he went pretty quickly for the areas of Wikipedia that are very obviously not good places for a newbie to start out, like SPI and RfA. Many aren't even aware that they exist. To be very honest, this gives me the impression that this isn't their first time on here and that they likely made edits under another account prior to this or at the very least, under an IP. The amount of new accounts that go to RfA immediately are very few and far between and the ones that do typically write up something that's maybe a sentence or two long, even with other RfAs to draw from. To see someone at SPI is far less common, enough to where I can't think of any cases where a new user got involved with SPI and wasn't an obvious sockpuppet. While the RfA from November has been deleted, the answers to his questions give off a better understanding of policy than most newbie editors have - and this was after he really began editing in September 2016. The bottom line of this is that I just can't believe their claims that they didn't know any better because their actions show that they should know better and they just don't care. They've said and done several things that show that they are at least passing aware of policy, as remarks about creating a sock or meatpuppet shows that he's looked at the policy page enough to know what this is... and yet still made the comment. His familiarity with other parts of Wikipedia makes it even harder to believe that he wouldn't already know that it's a bad idea to cut/paste an entire film script to anywhere on Wikipedia, especially as there's no actual need for this material anywhere and falls hard into WP:NOT territory.

He's been given so much benefit of the doubt that I honestly have to question whether or not he'd mature enough in a year to give him the WP:SO, given that he's had people try to work with him and he just turns around and breaks more rules. He's young, but a high school aged person is old enough to know better than to keep making mistakes like this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indefper Tokyogirl79. He's not being productive or mature. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Indef block/site ban, which can be appealed in 12 months. I hate to be this hard, but I've come across young people like this multiple times. When warned/blocked/etc, they repeatedly promise to behave, but keep on breaking their promises - he's simply saying what he thinks will get him out of his immediate trouble every time. A year from now, we might see sufficiently improved maturity, though I have my doubts - but I think we need to offer something. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I meant to add that I think Tokyogirl79 sums it up very well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I'm temporarily withdrawing my recommendation until I have a think through Floquenbeam's suggestion, below. I'd like to see some response from Luke to it too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose to any "site ban" or "indef block" however Support block of up to 3 months - We have veteran editors who have given us far more trouble than Luke has and who have received far lesser penalties (in some cases none whatsoever). They will remain nameless, though, much like FIM has done above. I can understand the push for a block, even a longer block of up to 6 months. But I don't understand the cavalier attitude displayed about handing down a site ban to an editor who has in fact improved the encyclopaedia with the assistance of others - Battle of Raseiniai and Astroneer. For me; RfA is not the encyclopaedia, Wikipedia space is not the encyclopaedia, your user and user talk pages are not the encyclopaedia, etc, etc. The encyclopaedia is in my opinion, "article space" only. The other areas are necessary, but, they do not contribute in and of themselves to the encyclopaedia. The single most damning issue I've seen above is a single, albeit significant, copyright violation on UNSC's user page. Many of the above say that AGF is not a suicide pact, but, I don't need to AGF here at all. There's nothing to AGF about. Luke has caused issues that have wasted community time and resources and should be sanctioned. 3 months is more than enough. How nice a block log would this be? 8 day block reversed after less than 48 hours followed by an indefinite block or better yet community ban with WP:SO as the only chance of parole. But I cannot support a short block -> community ban escalation based on the evidence presented above. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment; I support Floquenbeam's proposal below and think this would make a good set of boundaries to keep Luke in check. That said, at least a 1 month block is in order for all of the foolishness and mucking about. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Without prejudice to the merits of an indef ban based on repeated disruptive behavior, I am bothered by the vast majority of rationales for an indef block/site ban being based on the contributor's age. Punishing an editor based on assumptions of age and maturity is a bad look to younger contributors. We're not parents.--WaltCip (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is actually supporting a sanction because of his age, but because of his behaviour - and noting that his age is a factor in that behaviour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef or site ban per Tokyogirl's excellent disquisition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban as first choice. In order of preference after that, I also support an indefinite block or a lengthy block. This has gone far beyond mentorship or a cool-down period. This is an editor who was so disruptive at RfA that we had to ban them from the area. He's then decided to disrupt other aspects of the project, most recently by posting obviously copyrighted material to his user page in full. Even if that weren't a legal issue, why would he post the full script of the Bee Movie to a userspace? WP:NOTWEBHOST, obviously. He is clearly not here to contribute, and the community is sick of dealing with this area by area. He has posted the following quote on his user page, "Born too late to explore the Earth, born too early to explore the stars, born just in time to explore dank memes...". If that doesn't make clear that he's a troll, I don't know what will. He can go post dank memes elsewhere. The threat of the sockpuppetry would be the final nail in the coffin if not for the coffin being absolutely covered in nails already. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

[310] I'm not sure what we put on our User Pages usually gets used against us, does it, with the exception of (recently, and rightly) Nazi dog-whistles, for instance. We do have tight leashes in the armoury, people. Use them, why not? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

We applied a tight leash at the last ANI by topic banning them from one area and warning them that further disruption would likely result in further sanctions. When a tight leash doesn't work, we also have a muzzle. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support site ban as we've all had enough of this. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban This has gone on far too long. I see no reliable statement from this "editor" that they will change. Based on past experience, they will apologise and then continue the disruption to the project. David J Johnson (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• OK, as one of several who gave final warnings, I'll comment here:
  • I'm going to mention several times below that I'm pretty sure he's young. That's not to be dismissive or mean, it's just an explanation for behavior that would otherwise be attributable to darker motives.
  • Adding the Bee Movie script is not out-of-left-field crazy; according to my own kids, it's apparently a thing kids do (Google "Bee Movie memes". And then weep about our future). I can imagine a kid doing this, thinking it's funny, without thinking too much about copyright, when he sees others doing it. So this is probably not evidence of outright trolling. It's just evidence, after many, many previous actions, of poor judgement.
  • Talk of a true site ban seems like a severe over-reaction. Reasonable if he had no redeeming traits, but I don't think that's the case. There's a decent chance of a salvage operation here.
  • Talk of giving yet another final warning is a severe under-reaction. I gave a pretty clear one, and it wasn't understood.
  • I suggest a 2 week block. To firmly grasp the attention. And no unblocks after a few days if there's a "you've firmly grasped my attention" unblock request. A hard 2 weeks. Long enough to be painful, short enough to not encourage bad ideas.
  • Followed by a 3 month ban on non-article related edits. So the following would be OK: articles, talk pages, Wikiproject pages about articles (like, for example, WP:MILHIST and WP:TANKS, his own talk page. The following would not be OK: ANI, RFA (well, already done), XFD, Main page discussions, Wikiproject pages where he gets involved in arguments, etc.
  • While it seems mean-spirited, I suggest a ban on editing his userpage too. My hope would be to instill good habits, so that when the 3 month ban is over, there's no desire to go back to his old ways. If he really sticks to this, he'll have a decent reputation as a content builder at the end of the 3 months. Reputation is important, I would hope he wouldn't want to risk it doing something stupid on his user page at the beginning of month 4.
  • If he can find a mentor, great. Not sure that should be required, but it should be encouraged.
  • Kids mature quickly, so this isn't completely Polyanna-ish. I really have seen young users I was a hair's breath away from blocking indef change their ways once it became clear that fun time was over. Not all of them, not even most of them, but enough to know that there's a reasonable chance of success.
  • If problems resume after 3 months, or if problems begin on the pages they're allowed to edit during the 3 months, then cut bait.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I don't think any attention should be paid to his age. If an editor can't get with the program for whatever reason, despite endless mentoring and final warnings, then that's it. I don't know of a kinder way to put this, but this isn't a daycare. If it would be unacceptable for you to behave in this manner and waste everyone's time, then it's unacceptable for Luke. And if you want to pay attention to his age, then two weeks or 3 months or even 6 months is certainly not enough time to grow up. In a few years, if he matures, then he can always appeal. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was my feeling as well, that 3, 6 or 12 months were really relatively short times for the basic editing philosophy of this person to change, so it was much better to go indef and to allow them to make a showing of any change in whatever time period it occurs in. Plenty of WP:ROPE has been given, I think. If it hadn't, I would be more amenable to Flo's suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam:, I like this idea. I'd be perfectly fine with being banned from non-article and possibly talk pages for said articles, because that's the source of the problem. I'd also be ok with receiving a two to four week ban if it solves problems. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal I'm willing to offer mentoring. It'll be our way or the highway, as they say. Much more straitened than usual. In the knowledge that all these AGF privileges have just been used up. Any movement from the path- no further A N I possible; plenty of admins have already spoken their minds. They'll be queuing up to block indef if it goes mushroom shaped. Community? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: what form would this mentoring take? As near as I can see 'don't do stupid shit' is a tough mentoring goal. I like the idea by Floquenbeam above. Would that be something you would consider integrating into your plan? I think the hump that must be overcome is that Luke does not seem to have developed the maturity to know what it means to keep one's word, at least not once the threat of impending sanction is removed.

  I would be willing to support some sort of remediation/mentoring program since I think he can grow into a net positive but it would be well defined and, I firmly believe, it should follow a minimum of a one month block. He has been repeatedly threatened with sanctions and so far the only thing he has learned is that he can avoid them by apologizing and then goes on to do something inappropriate a week or so later. Jbh^Talk 23:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: Yes, very much along Floquenbeam's suggestion. The difference between this and the previous mentoring is that this is would be from within, as it were, the last chance saloon, as we say. And that would be made clear: the slightest fuck-up, and there's no drawn-out AN/I cases, no lengthy discussions, and no appeals. Anyone queuing up here to report / block them will have them spinning out the door so fast their feet won't touch. This is all notwithstanding, and without prejudice to, any other decision the community might make here; but if this is taken up, I would want a punishment already signed and sealed, so there is absolutely no doubt as to the consequences of non-improvement. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If something like that can be worked out with UNSC Luke 1021 I will support it although, based on the number of editors who are exhausted with their behavior, I think it is unlikely they will escape an indef block. Possibly they could be encouraged to include the mentoring plan, if you would still be willing to take it on, as part of an appeal in a couple of months. If they do so and I do not notice it please ping me and I will chime in there. Jbh^Talk 21:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• last chance I see the virtue in an immediate indef. It makes life easier for the rest of us. However, in fairness to Luke, I'd much prefer to see a WP:ROPE serious last chance warning. We can always block later, if needed.

I'm totally against all the WP:COOLDOWN block ideas. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support indef block (which, as we know, is not infinite). When an editor turns into a timesink like this, it's time to get back to improving the 'pedia. Miniapolis 23:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• To those of you who object to a indef/site ban due to his contributions, a simple break down: 50% are to user talk, talk, and wikipedia talk, 5% are to user, 22% is to wikipedia. Only 23% is to mainspace. I will comment that that is exceptionally low for someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• 3 month block, followed by the same restrictions in Floquenbeam's proposal (but with longer timeframes). My gut reaction is indef and be done with it, but I'm moved by the desire to assume yet more good faith - or perhaps it's give an even longer quantity of rope. I'm solidly un-moved by the fact that he redacted his socking threats, his MO seems to be do or say something outlandish, and when called on it either feign ignorance or say that it was a joke. That reminds me of someone else, and not in a good way (should there be a good way for that association to be made). Based on the socking comments, I think that Floquenbeam's timeline is too lenient, and a lengthier block will possibly provide evidence as to if he really meant that he would sock. PGWG (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support site ban — Trolls don't change. They're in it for the lulz, and responsible contributing does not provide any laughs. He's been given multiple, multiple opportunities already, taking up enormous amounts of other editors' time. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Site Ban as first choice, second choice is indeff block. This user has become a time sink for the community and is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. We really need to stop feeding his behavior and just take away his toy and be done with it. He's had his rope and has exhausted the community's patience. Best case Luke fails WP:CIR, worst case (and unfortunately more likely) they are goading the community for a reaction which they blatantly admit to. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's proposal, which offers a good prospect of addressing the disruption while giving the user an opportunity to show if he can be a productive editor. Neljack (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Indef with site ban as second choice (since my door comment above was not too specific) - an Indef is easier to come back from and they might actually grow up a bit in the meantime - they are capable of good editing, they just choose not to too often. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure I've yet decided what the appropriate response should be here, but I oppose a site ban. We site ban the worst of the worst, not someone who acts childish from time to time. Sam Walton (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Voluntary three month site ban and subsequent mentoring.UNSC Luke 1021.This is a kind of tipping point for you. Frankly at this point community trust regarding you is hemorrhaging away. Considering your potential future value to the project (I have seen your good work on MILHIST) this is a potential net loss to the project. However your behaviour has been highly damaging to your reputation, as is shown in numerous comments above. I would suggest that a voluntary break from WP, returning at an agreed time to take up a Last chance saloon mentoring agreement, as offered by O Fortuna! would do much to restore long-term faith in you by the community. It also would show self discipline. If you are found to be socking in that period, a permanent site ban can only follow. Pull yourself together Luke, basically. I think you are WP:HERE, but at this stage you must take urgent steps. Only you can agree to this, with community agreement. Irondome (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Floquenbeam's idea - last chance. I've only noticed this editor through a bizarre comment made on WP:ITN/C, but looking at some of the diffs I'll go with that. As someone who works in education, young people do mature and change very quickly. Black Kite (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef/site ban. We're lucky that this kid has stuck to disrupting user and project space, let's nip it in the bud before it gets worse. If he wishes to come back in the future, when he's more mature, there's always WP:Standard offer. ansh666 01:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Long-ish, but not indef, block - Not sure whether 1 or 3 or 6 or 12 months is the ideal, but the odds are that such a slap in the face will be enough. No matter the age, emotional maturity is clearly lacking; I think the previous warnings were dismissed as "individuals that don't like me"; a block longer than a month, imposed by community consensus, cannot be ignored similarly. (Notice that the only previous block was 8 days, and replaced by a topic ban) Of course, when/if they return, the indef will be flying circles around their head anyways, so the time lost if the worse-case scenario will be negligible. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 20:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed remedy

moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We need to move to a close here or it will go on forever. Can we have a straw poll please on the following: There is generally shared opinion that this is a young user who, given time, may grow out of their irrational behaviour. There is unanimous consensus that UNSC Luke 1021 is seriously disruptive and must be stopped. There are varying suggestions of severity for recommended preventative measures and also offers of mentoring. Site ban means an indef block anyway while there are fewer calls for the ban than the block. Taking the arguments for milder measures into consideration, I'm suggesting: Indefinite block for 12 months; request for unblock after 6 months (WP:Standard offer) under condition of mentoring. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Support Oppose Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Final chance warning, no other action at this time. I do not wish to create an "outlaw". I do not believe that "cooldown" would help. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Support Andy Dingley (talk) 09:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose

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

Chemistry CCH

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

---

I was hoping I wouldn't have to start a thread here and that some admin would come along and just block this user, but it looks like I'm posting this here because it's not grabbed anyone's attention yet. The aforementioned user has created, and continues to create, quite a lot of pages on topics which already have their own article. Another user just gave them a lv. 3 warning - would appreciate admin intervention now to stop the disruption. Thank you in advance, Patient Zero^talk 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Notified of discussion. Patient Zero^talk 15:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but the user in question has been deleting the speedy deletion tags from articles he/she created, despite warnings not to. Meretechnicality (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block for disruptive editing, hopefully this gets their attention. Another concern I'm seeing is this may be a shared account in a school, which would be another violation, and may result in a longer block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Their first article Stomatal density include a chunk of copy-pasted text from a journal article, which I have tagged and removed. I suspect, given this looks like a school account, we have a school project here that are unfamiliar with our requirements. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Each section in the Stomatal density article is copypasted from a different source (with an image pasted in from a fifth, and up for deletion on Commons) - I've flagged it for speedy deletion. --McGeddon (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Articles nuked. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• "CCH" is probably "C___ C___ High", so if someone can get an IP to identify the approximate location, we can probably verify this is a chemistry class account that needs to be given advice (perhaps via direct email to the school) how to approach WP school projects. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, why hadn't that occurred to me? Thanks everyone for dealing with this whilst I was offline. Patient Zero^talk 16:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Tom2123

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

---

Tom2123 (talk · contribs) Judging by the massive amount of warnings on this user's talk page and the recent vandalism (including moving Women's March on Washington, a highly active article right now, to Sore Loser March), it seems like this user is not here to be a productive editor. I suggest a block and possible indef. APK whisper in my ear 02:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@AgnosticPreachersKid: Tom2123 has just been indefinitely blocked blocked by Alexf. 73.96.114.164 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Addition of unsourced WP:BLP violations to several related articles

• Mladen Dolar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ljubljana school of psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jela Krečič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persistent addition of unsourced and accusatory content by multiple accounts. Perhaps user blocks or page protection are necessary. Any help to remove the appearance that I'm edit warring will be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

In their latest edit, they did source the content about the "international campaign" to http://www.sdzlp.si/mednarodni-poziv/, but it looks an awfully lot more like a post on their official website, and using Wikipedia as a means of promotion, than it does an "international campaign". TimothyJosephWood 20:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely :) I've requested temporary protection. I'm not sure it's much more than a 'cease and desist,' but-! Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, both of you. The edits by the IP have continued, so I've requested a block of that account. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

.99, I don't understand how the IP 'got through' the pending changes though? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: They didn't. They were waiting approval, 2601 reverted, and you accepted the revert (thus accepting the change and revert in one action). Readers saw nothing change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Deadeye!! Cheers, NeilN that explains it. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP seems to have stopped, in any case I've left a warning threatening a block if they do this again and if they do then the IP should definitely be blocked. I'm not sure they entirely grasped that having a very dodgy source for something doesn't make it acceptable with regards to BLP. Hut 8.5 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The IP did it again this morning. I've blocked them for 48 hours. Hut 8.5 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking additional eyes / input

During my page patrols I came across PianoKing, he's a fairly new user, attempting to create this article . I looked at it and saw that he had no sources, and rather than have it tagged for deletion, I | moved it into draft space to give him time to work on it. I also left him a note explaining what happened and why it happened and told him what he would need to do in order for this article to be kept.

To | his credit he appears to have added in sources. However, they were not linked nor cited, so I added to my original note, different paragraph, explaining in detail what he would need to do in order for his submission to be ready. He appeared to add in one more source, at the end | and then move the article back out of draft space with an edit summary stating the sources were "perfect".

I moved the article back to draft space and left him a seperate note explaining that his submission still isn't ready and to remind him that I 'd explained in detail what needed to be there, and what it should look like, and how to code it.

I'm requesting more eyes at this article and on the user. Not just because of this, but because of a second incident with this article. After I'd moved the article and tagged it as unreferenced, | a brand new user went right to this draft article and removed the tag. That's their sole edit so far. While it would be a stretch to say this was a sock, I'm beginning to wonder. At any rate, AGF assumed, if this is a new user it would be better if additional eyes were on this draft / article. Thanks ! KoshVorlon} 13:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The best way to deal with an article that seems unready for main space is to bring it to articles for deletion. It may seem severe to nominate it for deletion, but this is really the only noticeboard we have to resolve such issues. Unilaterally moving an article to draft space isn't a good idea in my opinion. I think it's better to gain consensus at AfD. With regard to the second account, it does look suspicious, but I'm inclined to wait and see what happens instead of taking immediate action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute with Lx 121 on Talk:Atrocities in the Congo Free State

Starting in mid-December, Lx 121 has raised a number of complaints on the talk page of Atrocities in the Congo Free State (a Good Article since September 2016). Initially, he/she claimed that the nationality of cited historians should be highlighted in the article but has widened the dispute to a dozen aspects of the article which he/she considers "bullshit". When some of the demonstrably false claims made are disproved (the absence of Congolese historians) he/she merely changes his/her argument. At the start of the dispute, he/she began to accuse me of "pushing an agenda" attempting "to minimize negative coverage of the belgian colonisers". On 28 December, he/she wrote:

i'm [sic] getting just a little bit TIRED of piron REPEATEDLY misrepresenting & ignoring points raised in this discussion.

& @ this point the only agf-reason left to explain the user's doing so is to assume that the user is having some problem with the reading & comprehension of the text? or maybe i [sic] can be "charitable" & pretend that biron [sic] was just reading too quickly? but that really is the last thread of agf here.

otherwise, it appears to be a deliberate tactic by the user, to obfuscate the matters being discussed.

When other users became involved in the discussion at my request, Lx ignored their comments. In his most recent comment (14 Jan), Lx wrote: "if this article was about nazi atrocities in ww2, instead of belgian colonies in the congo, you would be shut down as a holocaust denier/minimizer by now", effectively accusing me of being a negationist as a result of being personally "pro-Belgian". Instead of seeking consensus or responding to the other comments by other users, Lx writes "your sheer, impenetrable, {wikt|intransigence} [sic] has exhausted any reasonable agf here." Lx's comments are often quite incoherent streams of consciousness and seem to be becoming increasingly so as the discussion progresses. They are also becoming increasingly belligerent. Lx apparently has a history of similar confrontations in other topics, most recently in December. I had hoped that more users would comment in the discussion but, unfortunately, WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo has few active users and so the discussion has become increasingly confrontational. I have been editing on Wikipedia for several years and I have never seen personal attacks of this genre before. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I really have a hard time understanding

how a user can edit Wikipedia for ten years

and still somehow think it's appropriate

to separate nearly every clause in a comment

by a paragraph break

at times making a comment a page or more long

and rendering them barely readable. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That gives me an idea. Let's require all ANI posts to be haiku from now on. EEng 14:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. That's the worst I've seen since Enkyo2 (talk · contribs) (don't ask what reminded me of him). If Lx 121 doesn't explain himself and, more importantly, cut it out, he should be blocked (unless it can be demonstrated that this is localized to one article, topic are or dispute with one user, but that really seems unlikely). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

ok clarification please? are we criticizing me for my style of writing comments? or for my actions?

as regards my actions: i have VERY carefully avoided any remarks about this editeor as a person.

i don't care about this editor "as a person"; what i care about is the quality of the work.

& to put it very bluntly, after a very long, & fruitless "agf" on its talk page, this editor has written an apologist piece of shit.

the author has gone out of his way to minimise, to downplay, to reduce casualty estimates, to euphemise, & to excuse & deny belgian responsibility for any of the actions.

the author has cherrypicked their sources, & been highly selective in the material to use, even from thse sources; & ALL of it has been in the direction of downplaying the severity, & belgian/european colonial responsibility.

AND the author has reverted multiple other editors who attempted to revise the text.

over the course of several weeks of interaction this editor has been COMPLETELY INTRANSIGENT & absolutely 'impenetrable to any alterations to their text.

i'm going to rfc it, & aside from continuing to add sources, i'm walking away.

if anybody wants to suggest we delete the article, or merge it back into the main (since, in its present form, it has VERY little of substance to add to the subject) count me as a "yes" vote.

if anybody wants to nominate this piece of crap for "featured" (or for "promotion"); count me as "roflmao"

Lx 121 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

ALSO: the "complaining" user has misrepresented my position on the article.

from the start i stated that i found the article was nnpov. the lack of congolese sources was one of my objections; it was not the only one. i also objected, from the start, to this user's actions in reverting every change made to the tone of the text, by any editor, on the flimsiest rationales.

since the user posted this here, they have again reverted. this time the "objectionable material" was a period photograph of mutilated congolese children. which, contrary to the claims made by the user, was not part of the "disputed" content, & should have been a non-controvertial change & improvement, IF we assume this user is "acting in good faith". dif link pending Lx 121 (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

& here we go, this is the "good faith" edit reverting the lede photo from period documentation of mutilated congolese children, to belgian king leo; & completely removing the historical image from the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State&type=revision&diff=760164968&oldid=760099974

because, apparently any change to the article is now to be "disputed" by this editor; especially anything that might alter the carefully-contsructed tone of their coverage. Lx 121 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

final point -- in response to the original editor's claims, i have not "ignored" other editor's comments. i have, in fact, responded to each of them. & i have spent a very long time responding to piron, & a VERY large amount of patience & "agf" on this.

the editor was ALREADY behaving intransigently when i arrived on the article, weeks ago, & has continued to do so.

the editor has repeatedly mis-represented or "cherrypicked" from my stated positions in the dispute, & continues to do so.

tl;dr - i am all out of "agf" for this person; at least as far as their action on this particular article go.

Lx 121 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Your communication style of bolding, italicizing, use of ALL CAPS, and combinations of the three is not helping your cause. The above demonstrates just how disruptive it is, and combined with your belligerence and general intransigence I'm leaning towards a block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

*comment -- so, you are saying, in effect, that "you want to block me because you don't like how i write my comments in discussions"?

as opposed to actually considering the MERITS of my arguement.

well, if that is really where the "wikipedia community" is at, not to mention "WP"/rules, & IF you can make that decision stick through through review, then i don't need to be here ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW -- i don't know what peculiar device, or browser you are using to view this; but i'm using firefox with absolutely "plain vanillia" 100% html-compliance.

& on my screen, spacing & selective use of bold & capitals looks a hell of a lot more readable, than "blocks o' text".

so is this really a matter of legibility? or is this about "preferences" of style & "wp:i don't like this"? setting aside, for a moment, the point that the MOS is written for the article-space & we are deep into editor-land here. Lx 121 (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of legibility as well as a general battleground approach to collaboration, combined with decidedly less than civil interactions. If you fail to see the problem in your above response that only strengthens my view. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's simple legibility. It makes your comments very hard to read, especially as they're in a ranting style to begin with. Please make your comments in normal paragraphs, without the excessive use of capitals, bold and italics, and please try to use capitalisation. It's a simple competence issue. Coupled with stuff like "this editor has written an apologist piece of shit" and "if anybody wants to nominate this piece of crap.." makes me think that you are not particularly interested in collaborative editing, which generally makes me consider a block. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think Lx's attitude to the repeated (and polite) requests of several users to change the layout of comments rather symbolises his/her wider attitude towards collaboration on Wikipedia. The same day that Lx left his/her last comment on this page, he/she opened up a Request for Comment discussion on the article which, to me, looks like blatant FORUMSHOPPING. The comments on this review repeat the same attack on me as well as this comment: "i'm [sic] done; i [sic] am out of time, out of patience, & out of "agf" for this person. the article is crap, & i [sic] would vote to delete it, "merge" it back into the main c.f.s. article anytime. it [sic] adds nothing to the coverage already there."

I'm afraid I think this is just another example of how Lx is not listening to the comments on this discussion and on the article's talk page. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

As one of the participants in the original discussion, I'm afraid I must second Brigade Piron's opinion. Lx hasn't been nearly as belligerent with me as they have been with Piron, but they have nevertheless not responded positively or courteously to my comments. Their behavoir is not indicitive of a desire to collaborate, as I see it. I made suggestions on 29 December to which Lx did not respond, in spite of other Wikipedia activity. I then proposed that the discussion be closed, as they had not substantiated their argument and no one else was seriously contesting the article's neutrality. Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) supported this action, but only then did Lx respond, bringing up the German article on the same subject as evidence that other sources and material existed that should've been used. Prion then refuted the German Wikipedia page's reliability and that of its sources at which point the Holocaust denier remark was made by Lx towards Piron. Lx also then listed the Spanish and French Wikipedia articles on the Congo Free State as evidence for their argument. Shortly after the formal complaint was made before this board by Piron, I responded at length to Lx, agreeing with Piron's findings on the German Wikipedia and finding the two other Wikipedia's to be most unsuitable. Lx stated that I "didn't read carefully enough" and emphasized their older points. They also then took the time to make assertions about Piron's "intransigent" attitude. They also accused Piron of reverting their addition of a new photo to the article, attributing it to said "intransigent" attitude. Prion had in fact made this rversion as it had been stated at the beginning of the dispute that both Prion and Lx would refrain from editing while a discussion was ongoing (granted, I don't know if Lx ever agreed to the provision). I clarified my critiques on the "sources" Lx suggested and then reiterated the reason behind Piron's reversion. I asked Lx to "please refer to a specific source you think we can use?" that "1) discuss[es] the atrocities and 2) [is] reliable?" It doesn't appear Lx has been on Wikipedia since then, so I'm still waiting for a response. In the event one doesn't come, I would ask that the admins just offer their consensus in closing the dispute (or whatever their honest opinion on the matter is). I ask this because I'm afraid that like last time Lx will only show up to halt a cloture with more unfounded argument. My main concern is the article at hand, so I think that might be the best way of handling the local problem. As for the larger problem at hand, Lx's behavior, I can only say that I'm very discouraged by what I've seen -Indy beetle (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Like Indy beetle I came to this debate as a neutral third party. While I have always remained open to Lx's suggestions as to how the article could be improved (and continue to remain open to them), Lx's behaviour (toward Piron in particular) is far beyond the pale. In my view, a ban would be the obvious course of action, at the very least one that stops Lx editing Congolese-themed articles and their Talk Pages. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

L'honorable (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.

---

L'honorable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Disruptive editor, blocked on NL and DE wiki, block on Commons in process.
• Complete disregard for any rule combined with megalomania (he's actually in the process of teaching the Wiki-UK office in London about copyright.)
• Copied his talk page from Commons to his enwiki talk w/o proper attribution.
  • My last real edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=760150382&oldid=760148577 (23:53, 14. Jan. 2017‎), still it seems I communicated with him on enwiki, which I didn't.
  • He selectively copied from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%27honorable
• His insult from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AL%27honorable&type=revision&diff=230435711&oldid=230434151 copied to his talk here as well.

Of course he'll try to sweet talk himself out of this again, poor little user who doesn't know better approach.

I request a block for constantly violating rules, insulting a user on another project and knowingly copying this insult to EN-wiki. Please don't forget to remove the insult from his talk page. Thanks. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 00:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Most of this appears to be regarding a disagreement you're having with the user on commons. Can you link anything on enwiki? SQL^{Query me!} 00:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Search his talk for are you sound which he wrote and then copied from his Commons talk to here. Read the sentence. That should suffice for a block. Did certainly suffice on Commons. In the end I don't care if he's allowed to edit here or not. At least clean the talk page of his insults and advise the troll not to copy talk pages w/o preserving the history. Maybe somebody here can educate this guy that the projects are not about him. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 01:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing anything that stands out to me as a blockable personal attack on enwiki. You say that the user in question constantly violates our rules on enwiki. Please provide diffs, or close this request. SQL^{Query me!} 03:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when is insulting users allowed here? The edit clearly infers a medical condition. Once again, search for are you of sound read the sentence and tell me that this is not an insult / a blockable offence. [312]. This comment would be enough to drag that user in front of a German court. (§ 185 / 187 StGB) Please remove it together with the copyright infringement of the copied talk page (sourced from Commons), this I also x-wiki canvassing, another offence which is blockable according to enwiki.

• Insult / defamation: [313] fourth line from the bottom.
• His Commons talk page copied from [314] to his talk page here, history not preserved: copy vio. Compare User talk:L'honorable to [315]
• Canvassing / disruptive edits [316] [317] mass pinging of Commons users, uninvolved people on enwiki.
• [318] [319]
• This user has no regard towards any rules, unless they suit him.

The insult got him blocked on Commons and it's not enough for admin action here? Can't be right. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds damned close to a legal threat to me. Don't do that. SQL^{Query me!} 06:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is a legal threat? I simply stated a fact on which you refuse to act. You know what? If every troll can call another user mentally ill, forget it. Seems he found one friend at last. --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 06:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You really have to ask where the legal threat is after citing german legal code, using terms like "defamation", and saying things like "This comment would be enough to drag that user in front of a German court." SQL^{Query me!} 06:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Merely an observation, a threat looks different. A legal threat would be pointless anyway, since Common law would apply. Instead of asking ten times for a diff you should have read the post. Seems you stall the whole thing on purpose trying to sweep the PA under the carpet. Is that it? If it is, say so and cut this short. Or are you finally acting on the PA or not? --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 06:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hedwig in Washington, nothing has been done because YOU have not shown anything needs to be done. You need to provide evidence (in the form of diffs of edits L'honorable has made on en.wikipedia.org) of violation of a policy. To accuse another editor of making personal attacks without providing evidence is in itself a personal attack. Added to the legal threat, you are looking at a boomerang block. My suggestion would be to give us diffs on your next edit or drop it. John from Idegon (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have warned L'honorable to tone down as his discussion style was at least rude and disruptive. He did not take the advice. The Banner talk 09:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Having read through this section and the talk page (I was pinged, but I'm not getting dragged any further into this), L'honorable is being very aggressive and attacking in his style of interaction, and appears to be bringing a Commons dispute over here to seek help. L'honorable should not do that, and should keep disputes at other projects where they belong - when you are blocked on Commons, there are avenues there for seeking unblock. I don't see enough for a block here on en.wiki just now, but L'honorable is on the edge of personal attacks - Hedwig in Washington does have cause to feel aggrieved and, in my view, should not be threatened with boomerang action. L'honorable should be told to drop it at en.wiki and to to keep the Commons dispute at Commons, with the possibility of future action if that does not happen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• If you run a search for "Be aware", you'll see that User:Beeblebrox removed this person's block less than three weeks ago with a statement that problematic actions, including personal attacks, would lead to a restored indefinite block, and a reminder that a second indef is rarely granted. My further comments depend on you going here, finding "wild goose chase", and scrolling down just a tiny bit. And here we have references to Hedwig's actions as "bullying" (most onwiki uses of this moral-panic subject are an attempt to sway emotions against the alleged bully, and this is no different), followed by a completely contradictory "I have not accused you of even 1% bullying", attempts to sway things by pinging eleven people because "I need some support here", and other unacceptable content. Yes, this is clearly copied from Commons, but this kind of content has been added here and is prohibited here, so its source doesn't matter. The first part of the statement by Beeblebrox is coming true, and its second is not likely to be proven inapplicable here. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm, well spotted. If anyone wants to reinstate the block, I won't object (and I'm one of the ones he pinged for help!) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Series of Hoax articles from FilmMakers20210

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

---

Greetings all. Please can an Admin cast their eye over FilmMakers20210's contributions? Every article they have created contains serious inaccuracies, and after nominating sixseven of their articles for Speedy Deletion I'm worried about coming across as bitey. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing hits-y about deleting a bunch of hoaxes. If the editor cannot edit without making shit up, he should be infected immediately. All his articles are blatant lies. oknazevad (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• This would appear to also be a block evasion see User:FilmMakers20190 and User:FilmMakers00023. KylieTastic (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

looks like lots of accounts starting User:FilmMakers such as User:FilmMakers00023, User:FilmMakers20168, User:FilmMakers20200, etc all blocked. KylieTastic (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, looks like I was justified in my suspicions. FilmMakers20210 and an associated IP editor have been blocked. Thanks all. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted all remaining contributions under WP:G3 (though I think we should hold off from infecting him ;-). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Raisbeck Aviation High School disruptive editing

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

---

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Raisbeck_Aviation_High_School&type=revision&diff=760998139&oldid=753781409. The page is about Raisbeck Aviation High School and was edited with comments potentially harmful to its reputation. The edit has been fixed. As seen on the history page, the malicious editor is 2601:601:1301:14a3:c429:4a48:9f49:14e1. Thanks for any support you can provide as far as a block is concerned.

Otisredding (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Otisredding: Have you done any of the following:

1. Discussed the issue on the talk page of the article
2. Discussed the issue on the talk page of the editor concerned
3. Used a Request for Comment discussion to reach consensus
4. Notified the editor concerned that this discussion is taking place?

Yes? No? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Shrubbery. Ni. Please don't start an RfC for plain vandalism, nor bother with a discussion on the talk page. The vandalism was two days ago, so the user of the IP address has probably gone away by now. There's not much to be done here at this time, though willing editors may want to watchlist the article in case it happens again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Bishonen and User:Sitush deliberately ignoring verified WP:RS out of bias on Phulkian sardars 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.

---

Note. I've reverted Callmemirela's close of this as a "content dispute" after a mere hour. Complaining about my admin action (semiprotecting a page) as the OP did is hardly a content dispute, and I feel there may be more comments here, even though the OP has been blocked for disruptive editing. Comments by Sitush or some of the Indian admins, for instance. If not, I'll be fine with closing it in a few hours. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

Hello everyone,

I noticed that User:Sitush reverted my very important insertions, and administrator User:Bishonen claims the insertions were "disruptive".

I must note that both users seem to have been involved in the prior dispute mentioned on the Reliable sources discussion page, and are violating wikipedia ettiquette.

That is, the s:Imperial Gazetteer of India is considered a WP:RS per item (3) on the What is wikisource? article, which states that wikisources are reliable sources.

Further, I looked at the old discussion involving User:Sitush's previous disruptions, and while the opposing editor at that time definitely passionate, I can see why they were frustrated.

It seems Sitush is trying to use his own webpage to override a well-established protocol, which is that wikipedia sources are reliable. Here, Sitush claims they're unreliable and again (like before, from the previous dispute) refers users to his own page User:Sitush/CasteSources which seems to be overriden by the wikisource.

I am seeking action on this matter, as it cannot be refuted that if the reference used is a wikisource, then it is a reliable source. I don't know how or why the behaviour by Sitush has been allowed. I do not think adding page protection was reasonable here, either.

I would like my edits restored, and both User:Sitush and User:Bishonen reprimanded for violating ettiquette. I do not know why the latter is abusing their administrator privileges calling the insertions disruptive, either, when they are in line with wikipedia rules. I do not find Sitush's User:Sitush/CasteSources page as an acceptable argument to override rules (it seems this was also argued before, and upset the opposition as he kept doing this).

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.119.86.58 (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• This edit indicates a history to this dispute that we are so far unaware of. Surely, too, the two ANI 'notifications' the IP left were a trifle vitriolic to say the least? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not convinced item (3) on the What is wikisource? article means what you think it means. Wikisource contains Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, for example - this is a reliable source for what Darwin wrote; it is not necessarily a reliable source when discussing current evolutionary theory (and it is obviously not a reliable source for the current population of the People's Republic of China or the 2015 winner of the Best Actor at the Oscars!) It doesn't look at all to me like Sitush is using "his own webpage" to overrule consensus - it looks to me like he's summarised why otherwise reliable sources may not be reliable in all instances, based on previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard. I'm also a wee bit concerned that you don't seem to be assuming good faith with respect to these two editors. Also - why raise this at WP:RSN and here at ANI? Why not wait until editors at WP:RSN have replied? 80.229.60.197 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note: It's utterly irrelevant to say that Sitush's subpage User:Sitush/CasteSources can't be used as a source. No, of course it can't! It has never been offered as a source, but as a page that explains about sourcing in the area of castes on Wikipedia, with a lot of diffs and links to show consensus regarding the points Sitush makes, as per 80.229.60.197 above. A good example is Sitush's explanation of the unreliability of historians from the British Raj period, and the necessity of using modern academic work. I would have thought this was obvious to anybody who read Sitush's page in good faith and with competence in reading the English language; I don't know which of the two this OP is short of. As for the notion that everything on Wikisource (a library of primary sources), however old, outdated, and/or biased, is a reliable source for any context, I'll just leave it to the reader to evaluate. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC).

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

Catflap08 violation of ArbCom TBAN

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

---

I stumbled upon an ANI section relation to Hijiri88, who has an IBAN with Catflap08, where the question of if Hijiri88 is abiding by said IBAN. One user noted that Catflap08 had made some recent edits after not editing for basically a year.[320] So first I found an apparent admission of guilt on his talk page,[321] and then what he was admitting to doing.[322] According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Catflap08: Topic ban (I) (a case in which I was involved in), Catflap08 is "indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to Nichiren Buddhism and its adherents, broadly construed." Soka Gakkai, the article he edited with an edit summary of ":-)", is about a Nichiren Buddhist organization, thus putting him in violation of the TBAN placed by ArbCom.

Therefore, I am requesting that Catflap08 be blocked for no ness than one month as prescribed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#Enforcement. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 07:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

He broke his sanctions to add YouTube links... Not very bright. 2600:1017:B01B:777D:3422:2AEB:E24E:8AAE (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked Catflap08 for violating his topic ban. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oshwah, you did not leave a block notice on their talk page. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

P.S.: I agree that the block should be one month (rather than only 72 hours), since the user, who has only edited twice in the past 11 months [323], is actively bragging about violating the tban on their talk page [324], and since the edit, and its edit summary, were clearly made as a deliberate and overt flouting of the ban. Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Weird... I definitely notified the user... apparently the block notice I left didn't save. Done - Thanks for letting me know, Softlavender. After taking some time to think about the block duration I applied, I decided to extend the block to one month, as it's clearly what should be done. This is my first time applying a block due to ArbCom enforcement... I guess I'm just not used to applying blocks like this. Either way, you're absolutely right - it's what I should applied in the first place. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Holy blurp—Catflap's comment was basically a "block me, please"! Given it's been so long since he last edited, and how brazen he was with the edit and talk-page comment, what is a one-month block supposed to achieve? It's obviously not going to prevent the same behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm undoing the good-faith non-admin close of this thread because obviously a one-month block will not affect Catflap in the least, since they had previously not edited in 11 months. I think it's time to discuss a site ban of Catflap, since this edit was clearly antagonistic and self-advertised, and had a trolling smiley as an edit summary. Clearly the edit was made to antagonize and defy the community, and clearly Catflap is no longer here to build an encyclopedia but only to deliberately disrupt. Softlavender (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed site ban

This edit seems to make it abundantly clear that User:Catflap08 is blatantly WP:NOTHERE - As such, I would like to propose an indefinite site ban. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. No question. User disappears for a year and then returns only to blatantly troll while violating a topic ban and then brag about it on their talkpage, and then continues to laugh in the community's face when blocked. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It looks like he's retired except for trolling Wikipedia. Well, let's make his retirement official, then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Per Softlavender. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Yuck. It appears that this editor is only interested in causing trouble. In case this seems like piling on to an American football fan, I will point out that a hit is only piling on after the referee has already blown the whistle (which, here, would be closing the thread). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm on the fence as to whether a siteban is excessive in this instance, or called for by Catflap's longterm and continued inability to follow the rules. It seems like an indef would be the way to go, even if we wanted an open-ended block. But it strikes me that there is a more fundamental issue here. Shouldn't this be referred to WP:AE? That's generally the forum for enforcement of ArbCom sanctions. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well Catflap did prefer to be indefinitely blocked than topic banned. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeesh. Yeah, ok, support, per WP:NOTHERE. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Obviously just causing problems at this point. The bragging does it for me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support basically, they're trolling now. Blackmane (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Please reopen 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.

---

Tedder closed this AfD [325] after only two days as "speedy keep". Another editor and I discussed this with him or her as an inappropriate close (see discussion here). He has decided to stick by his decision. Closing this after two days does not seem to be correct procedure. And there is no way to predict the future and say that it would be "speedy keep" after seven days or 14 days. All that happened within two days is some of those who think the article should be kept Ivoted. This is not a conclusive outcome. I am requesting an Admin reopen this AfD. Also, it seems Tedder doesn't have a problem with another Admin reopening this AfD. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Take it to WP:DRV that is a much better place to discuss it than here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• ... but please don't. It's an obvious keep. If you disagree with me and everyone else on this, please don't respond here, but rather raise it at DRV... but please don't. It's an obvious keep. If you disagree with me and everyone else on this, please don't respond here, but rather raise it at DRV... but please don't. It's an obvious keep. If you disagree with me and everyone else on this, please don't respond here, but rather raise it at DRV... but please don't. It's an obvious keep. If you disagree with me and everyone else on this, please don't respond here, but rather raise it at DRV... but please don't. Really. EEng 04:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

EEng - hahahahaha! I realize the best possible outcome would most likely be "no consensus". So, if this goes to AfD again in six months to a year, then the closing Admin, and whoever else, won't be weighing a prior "speedy keep" as part of their decision if it is a close call. --Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, if you feel strongly about this and want it relisted or reopened, then you should take it to DRV. I doubt it would get reopened as it looks like a fine application of WP:SNOW to me (given, I was a keep !vote, but I also don't feel that strongly about this article.) Anyway, you're going to get more people looking at the AfD from a procedural standpoint there than here, and you're far less likely to get humourous responses like EEng's above. I would suggest you ask that this thread be closed here and move the discussion there if you want to push this. I happen to agree with EEng that it would likely not change anything, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop! Stop, will you? Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to comment here again until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even – and I want to make this absolutely clear – even if they do say Speedy Keep! EEng 04:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, just to be clear, I was and am considering DRV for a procedural decision based on your first comment above. I don't know if I will do so. I will discuss with the other editor. Also, I don't think it should have gone to AfD at this time anyway. I wanted to wait another six months. But I wasn't consulted :) and, well, people do what they do.

And, oh yeah, I request this thread be closed. I think the issues have been sufficiently discussed. Thank you all. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

This is forum for the request. It should have been taken to Deletion Review, even AN would have made more sense. For that reason I suggest closing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Prolific vandal and sockpuppet

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

---

• New IP is 104.243.167.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I strongly suspect this is a sock of: Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki (talk · contribs), Futuristic21 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki2 (talk · contribs), Mega256 (talk · contribs), Futurewiki The Third (talk · contribs), Mega257 (talk · contribs), Mega258 (talk · contribs), Futurew (talk · contribs), WXA53 (talk · contribs), Mr. Jazz, Rhythm & Blues (talk · contribs), 104.243.160.113 (talk · contribs), 104.243.169.127 (talk · contribs), 104.243.167.109 (talk · contribs), 104.243.166.108 (talk · contribs), and 104.243.170.125 (talk · contribs). Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked per OP andWP:DUCK. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Also 104.243.164.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Magnolia677 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Blocked -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You may want to ask a more experienced admin to consider a range block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The 104.243.16* range seems quite active... but they appear to be the same person (or editing in similar areas) (range). EvergreenFir (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Practically every recent edit from that range is this person. 104.243.160.0/20 blocked for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

I had the pleasure to meet 69.119.168.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of this edit. I never had seen the page before, but someone complained on the Help Desk. Since the edit was a blatant BLP violation I (manually) reverted it and left a level-2 warning about RS (without really investigating the matter further) (there was no content on the user talk page but OTOH it was still serious enough that level 1 seemed to mild).

The editor blanked my warning with ES "I cited sources, you fool", and left an edit war warning on my talk page. I intended to politely but sternly warn them that the warning is incorrect ("repeatedly [overriding] contributions", per WP:EDITWAR, requires at least two edits), saw an empty user talk page, got suspicious, checked the TP history and lo and behold, another warning and before that this one-week block three months ago.

So, here we are. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This is particularly lovely. That IP doesn't belong here. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of edits I would suggest a long term, if not indef, ban for this IP, even taking into consideration WP:IPBLENGTH. Garchy (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bender the Bot is malfunctioning

Personal history on Eddy Curry On his girlfriend who was murdered with THEIR DAUGHTER (yes it was proven that Ava Curry was Eddy Curry daughter the end) not her daughter but both children suffered indirectly of their father actions by the lawyer she was affiliated with to obtain child support for the children — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8402:CE40:C0A6:7788:5831:B603 (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

All Bender the Bot has done on that article is change HTTP to HTTPS - it has done nothing to change article content. Please take concerns about article content to the article talk page bearing in mind the requirements of WP:BLP - even talk page discussions need to be careful about unsubstantiated or undue accusations.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I, too, would like to complain about Bender the Bot's long-term conduct, including death threats ("Kill all humans!") and profanity and incivility ("Bite my shiny metal ---"). This is the conduct of a Wikipedian who has been up all night not drinking. Ribbet32 (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is you [326], please don't use misleading edit summaries. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

• Ksenia2727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was given several warnings related to WP:CRYSTALBALL, but failed to comply or communicate. Requesting to block the user.--Richie Campbell (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like he's creating "placeholders" for 2017 events. That's not so unusual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This issue with micromanaging pageant articles has gone from bothersome to annoying at this point (it's a regular AfD headache); it's not against any of our policies to create redirects or sourced articles to 2017 events. I see nothing to take action here; unless Ksenia is creating fake or spec pageant articles out of whole cloth, their editing history is fine and we can always change to "not occurred" or "N/A" if a pageant doesn't take place (TBA is not a bad thing by any means; in fact it's as far from CRYSTALBALL as possible because its not predicting anything). Assume good faith and leave them be. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition, your notice to "Please stop adding future pageants such as what you did with Miss Teen USA and Miss Kosovo because it invites readers to fill up the blanks and allow more vandalism to take place" reads as biting a contributor. We can revert vandalism rather easily without much effort; don't stop editors from adding information or needed columns because it'll hassle you for 20 mere seconds if someone vandalizes that line. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation?

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=761429694&oldid=761355412&title=Beekeeping. This edit managed to get around the edit filter disallowing the posting of the Bee Movie script in article. User who made the edit was blocked indefinitely for VOA and had three previous attempts to make the edit disallowed. WNYY98 (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Revdel'd by Bsadowski1 see the log --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Page hijacking

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

---

Rdiaep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hijacked Kinksi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) removed the original content, added some about a politician and then moved it to Frederick Merriman (Politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The redirect Kinksi was then redirected to Lääne County. It would seem that some page history fixes need to be done. Jim1138 (talk) 10:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed that by deleting the new redirect, then moving the article back and reverting it to its original state. I'm not sure what the motive was, but the new content was a copy of Frederick Merriman (politician) (lower case p), and the immediate creation of the redirect is a common way of attempting to permanently get rid of an original article, so I have indef blocked Rdiaep pending an explanation of what they were trying to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request

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

---

Maybe not the right place, but can someone italicize Book of Common Prayer in the main page lead of today's featured article on the Hemingway book? Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Randy Kryn! Since this is a general problem, and not an error on the main page, the proper place to request this change is at Talk:Main Page#General discussion. Best of luck, and happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Page move ban

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

---

Discussion (Dicklyon)

I hate to do this, but IMHO, it is time that Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned from moving pages. His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged, yet he continues to move pages without discussion.

Evidence of this can be seen at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'
• talk:Woodhead line#Page move
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?

and elsewhere. The most recent I'm aware of was this move of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railway article which was reverted 3 hours later. That article has been at its current title since April 2009, when it was moved from the German title to its English equivalent in accordance with WP:UE.

Therefore, I propose the following editing restriction:-

Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached. Mjroots (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon has been notified of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The MOS:CAPS (and MOS:everything else) army have driven enough editors who were far more productive than them away from Wikipedia already; we could probably do with them giving it a rest. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

If I had any idea who or what you're referring to I would respond. This is ridiculous. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support but it's not enough. The in-article changes are as much of a problem as the page moves. This needs to be broader.

This has particularly been a problem with automated search-and-replace changes, enforcing MOS changes onto the titles of cited books or external businesses. If MOS can be enforced automatically, then have a 'bot do it. If it can't be done so easily, then it needs care. Dicklyon just doesn't see this, he thinks all text strings must conform to some arbitrary MOS rule, no matter the context or consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I think. If you have a complaint about what I do, make it explicit, as did you before and I promptly apologized for my mistake and fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't give a damn what you think. What you think is clear, and it's so far from what a significant number of other editors think that we are now here at ANI, discussing whether or not to formally prohibit you from continuing to edit in the way that you think. This is no longer about what you think any more, it's a matter for other editors to decide. You might try to influence us that such changes were right, or that you're no longer going to cause a problem with them, but it's now out of your hands as to whether you'll still be permitted to make them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was pushing back on your assertion of what I think. I agree that what I think is not very relevant here, and can't be objectly discussed or evaluated, so why would you insert your opinion of what I think into this discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• And now you've found a new target, Talk:L1A1 self-loading rifle#Requested move 7 January 2017, to push this same agenda that a simplistic style guide always overrules all subjects, no matter what the context. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So now I'm not allowed to express an opinion and share book evidence in a requested move discussion? What happend to WP:BRD? Dicklyon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Express away. But if you're trying to make a case that you can express judgement over renames rather than a blind compulsion to impose one rule, over all others, then it's not really helping you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem here. At a glance, and as a person unacquainted with these matters, Dicklyon seems to want to bring capitalization of titles in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which says that capitals should be reserved for proper names. That seems unobjectionable to me. It's of course possible that this (like other MOS issues) can give rise to heated disputes in individual cases, but neither the request nor the links provided appear immediately indicative of any serious conduct problems concerning Dicklyon, let alone problems warranting a ban.  Sandstein  15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a "Proper Noun Phrase" is, which is why the Bittern Line article was moved to Bittern line, despite it being heavily marketed as the Bittern Line by the TOC, Broads Authority and Tourist Information Board. There are many other examples of such moves, most of which have been challenged. Mjroots (talk)
    • And in the ensuing RMs, virtually no one agrees that what you want to label a proper name/proper noun actually is one. People who have neither a background in linguistics nor in philosophy rarely get the nuances correct, and frequently think that anything often capitalized is a proper name, and they're simply incorrect on that. I've seen that very argument advanced multiple times in the very discussions under issue, often commingled with the additional fallacy that anything that governmental sources capitalize must be a proper name, even though we know that official-ese wantonly capitalizes everything it can as form of emphasis.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support indef Dicklyon was unblocked under the standard offer with the condition that he did not return to carrying out controversial page moves. He has previously been prohibited from carrying out page moves. WP:ROPE... Keri (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, he was not prohibited from carrying out page moves, that restriction was from "large scale, potentially controversial actions such as mass page moves" (my emphasis). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  "...such as..." (my emphasis.) Keri (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  (EC) Agree here, the restriction was on controversial actions, not on mass page moves, that was just an example of a controversial action. Normally just moving a page to a hyphen-dehyphen would not be controversial, however Dicklyon knows perfectly well it is, has been told before not to do it without discussion, and I think this is the second report in as many weeks about Narrow Gauge hypenation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: - that is not the proposal on the table. Let's discuss the page move ban, and if enacted see how things go from there. Should it prove necessary, a CBAN discussion can be raised at some point in the future. I hope it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I hear you, but the page move ban is effectively already in place. Dicklyon has ploughed on with controversial page moves regardless (see eg the comment below from Bradv). Keri (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I can't see any way the unblock condition can be said to apply to all controversial actions. If it was intended to be all controversial actions, it should have been 'large scale or potentially controversial actions' but it was not. It was "large scale, potentially controversial actions". So it clearly only applies to stuff that is both large scale and potentially controversial. This would include mass page moves, per the example and other stuff (e.g. nominating 1000 articles for deletion in one go). It would not include a non large scale page moves, no matter how controversial. Of course an editor who has already been prohibited from something in the past, and has accepted a standard offer has to be on their best behaviour, but it's not a violation of the stated unblock condition. Nil Einne (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, but he was *not* "prohibited from carrying out page moves". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  If you are referring - which your quote suggests - to the 3rd link in my comment, it is quite explicit: "I'm imposing a six-month ban on page moves except through WP:RM" (my emphasis) Keri (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  @Keri: You are correct, and I apologise for my mistake. In April 2015 he was indeed prohibited from page moves for a period of six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I went to Dicklyon's talk page to complain about an inappropriate page move, and saw this thread. Bradv 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: RM is the prescribed process for determining page names (a content dispute), and these moves mostly go the direction DickLyon proposes. Many of them are edge cases or grey areas, and the reason we have RM process, instead of people moving pages at whim and moving them back, is to have consensus discussions about what the page should be named, based on what policies, guidelines and evidence, and for a body of such discussions over time to make these areas less grey and less edgy, so debate about them ceases. The fact that some of the move proposals don't succeed doesn't somehow mean that DickLyon is being disruptive, it means that DickLyon is not infallible and that the process is working. What is really going on here is that WP is beset by a large number of overcapitalizers (especially for WP:SSF reasons) and people who don't understand the difference between hyphens and dashes. They are naturally, as an aggregate class, going to be irritated by someone who focuses on cleanup of excessive capitalization (against WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS) and incorrect use of horizontal line glyphs (under MOS:DASH), and who like to gang up on him at RM and, periodically, ANI – frequently making uncivil accusations about him in the process. Their own behavior needs to be examined. ANI is not a venue for circumventing RM or any other WP:PROCESS; we have those for a reason. The particular locus of this new dispute seems to be rail transit fans, who are a "particular" lot. But they cannot agree even amongst themselves; our transit and transport articles display a wide variety of conflicting styles, even with regard to the same transit system (e.g. Van Ness Station versus Fruitvale station in the San Francisco Bay Area), and the train fans, highway cataloguers, and other topical camps in the general category frequently contradict each other. With very few exceptions, these editors have no linguistic, professional copyediting, or other background in language and style matters, nor in philosophy (where the nature of what proper names really are is also debated at length), and incorrectly insist that everything they ever see capitalized for any reason in any kind of writing (e.g. signage) is a proper name, and/or that anything with any kind of label, designation, or categorization has a proper name, or both, and they are flat out incorrect. These RM discussion need to happen, with sufficient input and in sufficient number that an actual consensus emerges. Or hold a site-wide RfC on the matter at WP:VPPOL. ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute. This type of content dispute (cf. 2014 huge RfC about capitalization of common names of species, for example) can get heated, but most of the invective about it is hot air and it will dissipate once a consensus emerges one way or the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

FTR, Van Ness and Fruitvale are stations on different systems. I would have thought you of all people would know that. EEng 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

BART and Muni overlap through most of their downtown SF length, sharing stations (which are city property), and those of us who use them to commute do so as a unified system, with a unified pass, called Clipper. Which governmental body technically owns each station isn't relevant to the points I'm making. And I could have picked other examples, e.g. two Muni stations, or whatever. I just picked two I use every weekday.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As a former BART consultant I can assure you BART and Muni are hardly a unified system, though it's good to know that the elusive goal of getting patrons to feel that way has been achieved, at least in your case. Your example amused me because I had a front-row seat for this precise station/Station interagency debate in the 90s. The four downtown SF stations are either joint BART/Muni property, or BART property partly leased to Muni -- can't remember which -- but certainly not "city" property. I'm only giving you a hard time because I know you have high standards so you'd want to be set straight. EEng 20:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough! Now I'm curious about those station/Station arguments, but that's for another page.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support WP:RM#CM is clear: "The discussion process is used for potentially controversial moves. The move is potentially controversial if any of the following apply:" when point three applies: "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move." Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon's explanation below, which, if an accurate reflection of his page moves, seems reasonable. Paul August ☎ 20:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I challenged Dickylon's move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article. He doesn't appear to be interested in following Wikipedia's conventions, or even his own conventions. He is only interested in imposing his own specific interpretations of grammatical rules, no matter the context or the rationales involved.

A few examples. He first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search (a notably unreliable mechanism, per Wikipedia's own article) showed that the hyphenated version was the more common. Then when I demonstrated that the common usage in British railway articles was unhypenated, he dismissed that evidence because it was from the specialist press, citing WP:SSF. Okay, so I demonstrated that the usage in the general British press was "narrow gauge" and he dismissed that because newspapers "don't count". He's never explained why newspapers don't count, even though WP:SSF explicitly says they do. All this is at Talk:British narrow gauge railways. He won't accept any evidence that contradicts his personally held beliefs, even when his own guidelines disagree with him. This makes it impossible to have a rational debate with Dickylon. The only rules he wants to follow exist in his mind.

Much worse though, he started to move articles that contained the word "narrow gauge" to their hyphenated version. I politely asked him to revert he changes while the debate continued on Talk:British narrow gauge railways. My understanding is he should at least have waited for the debate to finish before imposing his own interpretation across Wikipedia. Instead he continued on his crusade, ignoring my objections and those of others. I asked him again to stop, pointing him to the debate he had already taken part in. Yet he continued moving pages.

Even when the debate on the talk page was completed and he had failed to generate consensus, he continued to move pages, including the very page under debate.

How is this okay? He is imposing his personal interpretation against consensus, and against guidelines. Far from following policies like [{WP:BRD]] he is riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of Wikipedia at every turn. It's hugely frustrating and a massive waste of time, energy and goodwill. Railfan23 (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you link where you say you challenged my move of the British narrow gauge slate railways article? I think you're mistaken there, along with much of the rest of what you say about me, like what I'm interested in (which is neither true nor relevant), or that I "first claimed that "narrow gauge" should be converted to "narrow-gauge" because Google n-gram search showed that the hyphenated version was the more common". I did not; the n-gram search was about evidence, not about a reason; if you see a place where I said something inappropriate, link it and let others see, too. And if these "narrow-gauge" moves are so bad, why have practically none of them been reverted? The narrow gauge slate railways this morning was the first, I think; and the other one this morning at Harz Narrow Gauge Railways, which I had not known about before this AN/I complaint, since I was sleeping. At the RM discussion, you were the only one opposed to the hyphen, with your silly Br/Am theory that I disproved; nobody backed you up on that pushback, because it made no sense. Bermicourt tried that later in a different context, but then resorted to a much more plausible rationale for the Harz, saying it's the official company name (even though the official company name is actually German and the article is about the lines, more than about the company, and even though it appears lowercase a lot in English-language books, but those are points I'll bring up if we do an RM later; for now, I've been reverted on that one, so next we discuss). So only two reverts out of all these horrible moves, and both while I slept this morning, is reason to ban me from page moving? Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

First, apologies, I got the detail wrong. I objected to your mass move of articles and only to your proposed move of British narrow gauge slate railways here. Your first justification of the hyphenated version in Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways was this one at which you explicitly cite the Google n-gram search. You gave no other justification for why the hyphenated version should be preferred. You may have intended that to be "evidence", not a "reason" - but a reasonable reading of what you wrote, is that you are saying the n-gram search is the justification for your proposed hyphenation.

It was only [later that you said] WP:SSF was the justification for changing "narrow gauge" to "narrow-gauge". Though of course you only apply the very small bit of that guideline that agrees with your personal opinion, and continue to ignore the rest. If you won't stand consistently behind the guideline, don't quote it at all.

I did not revert your page moves because I believe it is better to discuss instead of imposing my opinion. I asked you, twice, on your talk page to revert the moves. I thought that was more productive than just reverting you, and also believed I clearly expressed my wish for them to be reverted. Will you really only respect the outcome of a discussion if you have been reverted first? My objection was just as clear as reverting would have been, while being less disruptive and more respectful. You just continued on making changes over objections, while the debate was still running. Railfan23 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This venting is off-base and misplaced. See MOS:HYPHEN: narrow-gauge is hyphenated when used as an adjective because compound adjectives are hyphenated (in WP's formal/academic register, anyway, even if some news-style publishers are dropping the practice; WP is not written in news style). As I said above, that's is just an attempt to re-litigate a content dispute in the wrong forum. Your disagreement (a factually incorrect one and WP:POLICY-contradicting one) against Dick_lyon is not an ANI matter, but an RM one. The move in question should certainly not be controverted by a reasonable person, since it comports with both our style guide and other major style guides and grammatical works; the objection is not reasonable. Next, you're welcome to use WP:RM#CM to contest an undiscussed move and open a full RM on it. That's the standardized process for this; ANI is not it. I have to wonder, when this is not done and people open bogus ANIs instead, if its because they suspect that a full RM will (as is typically the case) agree with the move that DL made. PS: I note that some of the "examples" of "disruptive moves" mentioned here were in fact already upheld by RMs; so people are trying to punish DL for successfully demonstrating consensus via the prescribed processes. That strikes me as WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:SYSTEMGAMING.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong forum, but I did not bring this here, and it is appropriate for me to respond to Dicklyon's queries. Please don't imply otherwise.

You assert that no reasonable person could revert Dicklyon's moves. It is clearly not the case that all style guides agree with you, nor that the general usage agrees. WP:NOT#NEWS applies to content not style, so isn't relevant. MOS:HYPHEN includes suggestions on hyphenation, not incontrovertible rules. Your own guideline WP:SSF says "Wikipedia and its Manual of Style, article titles policy, and related guidance draw primarily upon reliable general-purpose, broad-scope sources for editing guidelines. These sources include the best-accepted style guides for formal writing – like the current editions of The Chicago Manual of Style ... as well as observation of what is most commonly done in reliable general-audience publications like newspapers and non-specialized magazines and websites". So this assertion that newspaper usage doesn't count is frightfully convenient, but not actually correct.

If there was an indisputable hyphenation rule, then Dicklyon's approach might be sound. But there isn't, and simply asserting that there is doesn't make it so. Given there are reasonable grounds to debate this, we should seek consensus instead of imposing one particular interpretation, especially while the debate is still going on. The real issue is not the merit of a hyphenation rule, but how Dicklyon interacts with other editors. Ignoring requests and on-going debates, constantly changing the goalposts, refusing to debate substantive arguments, ignoring the parts of rules that contradict his position while rigorously enforcing other parts. These are not in the spirit of Wikipedia and should be discussed. Railfan23 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that there's an indisputable hyphenation rule. All guides talk about having to make choices. But generally, the choice is not that hard, as in this case, and your dispute of it was based on a bogus Br/Am claim, and later on a claim that the hyphen slows the reader down. It became clear that you don't understand hyphens. Nobody else supported you on either of those bogus theories, nor objected on any other basis, until Bermicourt much later and independently came up with the same bogus Br/Am theory (where is this coming from?). Go check some style and grammar books, then we can discuss more. Dicklyon (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Railfan23: Read what you cite. Direct quote from WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." That invalidates your entire line of reasoning, that you can rely on news style against MoS. And, yes, DL is correct that your attempt to make this out to be some kind of WP:ENGVAR matter was also faulty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The Manual of Style isn't something to blindly obey, it's a guideline. Using it as an excuse to unilaterally push through page moves that don't have any consensus, and refusing to accept that you may be wrong even when the specific things you've done wrong are pointed out to you, is evidence enough that this editor does not have (or does not use) the expertise required to perform page moves. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See the many relevant RMs; I'm generally careful to stay with consensus when making moves. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Mainly because I was already watching the discussion Railfan talks about above, and its clear Dicklyon has no real interest in evidence that doesnt support his preferred version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Only, there's no policy about what things I need to have a real interest in. If I did something wrong, say what; or at least say what evidence you think I've done the crime of not being interested in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the term is 'moving the goalposts'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose—Largely per Sandstein, above. This is an abuse of the ANI forum by partisans: very sad to see. Mjroots, you write: "Dicklyon doesn't seem to understand what a 'Proper Noun Phrase' is" (I presume you didn't mean to capitalise it)—tell us, what exactly does it mean, and how is it different from a proper name? Tony (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Dicklyon may occasionally come across as overly pedantic but he is a constructive editor following our policies and guidelines and this is a gross overreaction to a disagreement over whether those policies and guidelines should be followed (on which Dicklyon is, as usual, on the correct side). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. After taking the standard offer, users really need to be on their best behavour from that point on. Yet barely a year later, here we are. I agree with Black Kite's impressions regarding the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite had no actual complaint about me. But you, like him, think I should be banned for what some unspecified other group of editors has done in the past? Gee, thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Lenahan, you've made an overtly political statement. I do believe that this forum should minimise political content, just as it should try to distance itself from the personal. In my view, this is a problem with the whole thread. Dicklyon might simply be reminded of the need for care and consultation, and this matter should be thrown out so we can get on with more important things. Tony (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree if you wish, but I have as much right to speak as you do. In fact, if anything the general obnoxiousness and failure to get the point by Dicklyon and his cohorts in this very discussion has further convinced me that this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. I stand firmly behind every single word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this right.
1. Anyone supporting Dicklyon is a "cohort" and their opinions can therefore be dismissed (however, the reverse is not true).
2. Your opposition's failure to concede is further proof that they are wrong and that "this is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with".
That is some of the most remarkable reasoning I've seen in awhile, even in MoS wars. Stand behind it all you like. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All he did was repeat Black Kite's accusation (or "impressions") of unspecified past transgressions by unspecified editors, as "the negative effect of the overly-pedantic MOS editors". Nothing to refute, nothing to stand behind. I agree it's remarkable, the extent to which he wants to say nothing. We can get the point that he is somehow frustrated about wikignomes and the MOS. It happens. And Meryl Streep is way over-rated. Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There must be a term for framing a debate in a way that makes it impossible to lose and therefore not a true debate. This is not the first time I've encountered that tactic; not too long ago a 50,000-edit editor stated that the best way to demonstrate my good faith was to agree with his viewpoint. It was bulletproof! Anybody know the term for that? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Rhetorically brilliant but intellectually dishonest?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The claim that Dicklyon is doing mass page moves has no credible evidence. It appears he's prohibited from taking controversial actions, which is an absurd restriction, to too vague to be taken seriously. Under the circumstances, it might be best if he refrained from making controversial moves without an RfC or RM request, but making it a restriction is unjustified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  How are we defining "mass"? Dicklyon move log Keri (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  That's a cool tool I wasn't aware of; thanks for showing us. It shows 250 article moves (plus the corresponding talk pages) since Dec. 4, or about 7.5 per day, somewhat lower than my guess of average 10 per day over the last year. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, David Eppstein, Tony1, et al. I see the target being calmly responsive to criticism, in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor. Such invective is never appropriate, I have seen it before from that side of this longstanding dispute, and it tells me a lot about the situation without spending days studying its history. I have enough exposure to Dicklyon's editing to know that he cares at least as much about process as many of his attackers here. Has the appearance of an ideological witch hunt.
  Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – Dicklyon is not a disruptive editor and cares deeply about the integrity of the encyclopedia. AN/I is the wrong venue for this MOS debate. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not a disruptive editor? I'll just leave this here. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that discussion. I'm still hoping to hear someone explain what those editors are smoking; no implication that's it's illegal, but certainly seems mind-bending. Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The simple fact is, that was your response when it was pointed out to you that something was a proper noun, and should therefore not be arbitrarily given lower case letters. It's an uncivil response because you're not willing to accept that you may be wrong. If you're not willing to defer to the opinions of people from a relevant Wikiproject, and instead you're slavishly (and in this case incorrectly) following the guidelines in the Manual of Style, then it calls into question that long list of page moves. Is anyone going to volunteer to check through every single one and make sure that a lack of core knowledge hasn't pushed through moves that have over-ridden the opinions of people who are better versed in the subject matter? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The point of my jest was that the linked web page there did not support the opinion that it was cited in support of. Opinions are fine, as far as they go, and I'm sure most of us have some; but decisions based on consideration of evidence are more useful in such discussions, which is why I was poking fun there. If I'm wrong, please do show me. Anyway, this RM discussion is pretty far off topic here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Seemed good-natured ribbing to me, and the point Dicklyon raised was correct. The "source" chosen does not in any way indicate that the phrase is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Question: What percentage of Dicklyon's page moves turn out to be overturned? As far as I can tell only a very small percentage. If so then preventing him from doing moves would be a significant loss for the encyclopedia. Paul August ☎ 18:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I estimate about 1% usually, but there have been a few clusters that might push that up a bit, such as the group of 7 Japanese railway lines that I downcased on 10 Dec. that all got reverted; leaving that alone until I get around to discussion. And the sneak-attack at Talk:2016 NFL Draft#Requested move 30 April 2016, a single-page RM at a new article, watched by very few and probably only be NFL fans, which was interpreted as overturning all the XXXX NFL draft article titles that had been stable since I had downcased them in 2014 (see why I did: [327], [328]). So maybe 2 or 3%. Or maybe I'm in denial and someone can show that it's higher than that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That percentage would need to be compared with the percentage for the average editor (or the average editor with x+ edits/page moves maybe). It could just be that a large number were left alone because none cares. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the average editor has anything to do with it. We simply want to know whether his moves are a net plus, or a net minus, for the project. And that no one "cares" about a move would seem to constitute reasonable prima facie evidence that it was OK. Paul August ☎ 19:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, per SMcCandlish, Sandstein, Arthur Rubin, Tony1, et al. I've had limited interaction with Dick, but I've no doubt whatsoever that he is here to improve the encyclopedia, and is a net-positive to the project. This is draconian. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's worse than draconian, which would be something like a lone "I am the law!" admin taking terribly harsh action against Lyon and anyone who agrees with him. What we have here is more like a cluster of villagers with torches and pitchforks trying to chase someone out of town and into the swamp because he talks different from them. (Fortunately, people along the road are objecting and stopping the mob.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, my "witch hunt" was the wrong metaphor; the word I was looking for is "lynching". And that's about as counter to Wikipedia's core principles as one can get. Thankfully, it's looking like the mob has lost this one, so the principles still have some life in them. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Why am I getting the impression that it's me vs Dicklyon here? I wasn't the only one who complained about his moving of articles over a period of several months. There were plenty of others. I think this discussion has now run for long enough, so it should be closed by an uninvolved admin. As I said elsewhere in this discussion, I did consider indeffing Dicklyon; but I thought it would be be better for all concerned to raise the issue here. Whatever happens now, I wish Dicklyon the best for the future and hope that he will continue to edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't know why you're getting that impression, especially immediately following mention of villagers, mob, lynching, etc. If Dicklyon or any of his so-called cohorts repeatedly fails to observe Wikipedia process, let us know. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I have read this whole page, including the below discussions. I am convinced that banning Dicklyon would be a miscarriage, and any sanction would be inappropriate. First, there is no evidence that Dicklyon has been disruptive either in the short term or the long term. In fact, the preponderance of evidence points to Dicklyon editing in accordance with guidelines and polices.

Second, it seems the complainant is overreacting by bringing this issue to ANI and by having considered a more draconian alternative (please see below) - and that the alternative was in any way reasonable. In light of this, I recommend this person take a wiki break due to WP:INVOLVED.

Third, assuming good faith, there is a small cluster of editors who are relying on sources that are specialist or ambiguous and therefore not sufficient for determining the correct letter case for the title and when it is used in the body of the article. It is clear from the discussions on this page, and the discussions that have been linked to, WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and WP:SSM, along with related guidelines, are the appropriate references for article title conventions on Wikipedia.

Articles are supposed to be consistent across Wikipedia, and not edited according to a mish mash of rules by various groups of people across Wikipedia. This is because we are striving to become a premier or the premier reference work as an encyclopedia - so that is why we follow these conventions (please see: WP:NCCAPS). Dicklyon edits in agreement with these principles and guidelines - so we shouldn't even be here, at this ANI.---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Black Kite, Keri, Lugnuts, Railfan, Exemplo347, Only in death, and Starblind. He was unblocked a year ago on the condition that he make no controversial page moves [329], and these moves are controversial and have been objected to. And they are extensive: [330] Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message. WP:RM#CM says "[A] move is potentially controversial if ... [s]omeone could reasonably disagree with the move." He also aggressively pursued Nyttend across multiple forums about his close of the RM for Steamboat Bill, Jr.: [331], [332], [333]. It's time to just put this disruption to rest. Softlavender (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I already discuss below how I reacted to the few moves that were challenged; if you think there are others where my reaction was inappropriate, can you point them out? And on the use of dashes between person names, are you saying that's controversial now? I thought that was settled in 2011. None of these have been challenged, which is why I was working on that while waiting for this railroad challenge to resolve. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The links provided by Softlavander do not demonstrate that Dicklyon "agressively pursued User:Nyttend across multiple forums" for that RM close or any other. A number of editors were involved in these discussions and Dicklyon happened to be only one of them. Nyttend seemed to lose sight of proper use of Admin tools and status and this needed to be discussed. Softlavender's claim has no basis in fact. There is nothing to indicate Soflavender's view of this matter is accurate.

Also, linking to Dicklyon's entire move log history appears to be an attempt to say all his page moves have been controversial. This is not the case. As has already been discussed, perhaps 1% to 3% have been challenged or reverted and discussion ensued if it was necessary. The only exception, as Dicklyon pointed out, are the Japanese Railway issues because the reverts in this project occurred recently, and he hasn't gotten around to it yet. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Here are the conditions of his unblock a year ago [334], and here are his thousands of unilateral page moves since his unblock [335]. The objections to his moves since his unblock are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened (there are obviously many, they just don't all happen to be listed here because that's not necessary nor is everyone watching ANI), and contesting one type of move is an implicit objection to the whole family of that type of moves, so the individual "percent objected to" is a misleading statistic. He has obviously violated the conditions of his unblock, so he needs to go through RM for any further moves. That's not a burden, since RM moves can be grouped into families of the same type. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that my moves are not controversial, based on the fact that so few of them are challenged, and those few that are challenged I either quickly made right or found a consensus in favor. If you want to point out counter-examples, please do. Otherwise, all you're accusing me of is doing a lot of work, which I have already stipulated to. Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Partial oppose and partial neutral. I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed, largely for the reasons given here by individuals such as Softlavender and Calton, but because of recent disputes I don't want that wish to be considered for consensus. I'm therefore neutral on the proposal for the most part. Given the fact that all dispute over Dicklyon's pagemove activities appear to me to be mainspace-related, and given people's propensity to wikilawyer in general, I don't think it would be fair to impose the ban as written. If you ban him, ban him from moving pages in mainspace and Talk:space, whether they're moved within the same namespace, from one of those namespaces, or to one of those namespaces. Don't restrict him from moving pages that neither start nor end in those namespaces: as far as I know, we currently have no reason to restrict his ability to move drafts, project pages, userspace pages, etc. If the ban were limited to main and talk, I would be entirely neutral. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Very cute; translation: "I probably shouldn't say anything because of my recent anti-MOS rants, but I agree with Softlavender, who hasn't made it clear what her complaint is other than bugging an admin for his involved close, and with Calton, who has made no complaint at all". Not much I can say to that... As for the rest of your idea, I think everyone will know that it's a distinction without a difference. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support per Calton. When you're so aggressive that you display hostility toward the neutral, when you've demonstrated that you won't brook opposition on this kind of question, and when you characterise disagreement as opposition to project standards instead of considering that there might be room for disagreement, the encyclopedia will benefit if you are prohibited from moving pages. I still maintain that we shouldn't restrict his ability to move pages other than mainspace or talkspace. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't you call Calton here to voice his complaint if you're going to reference it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

And you can't really make "I personally believe that the project would be better off if the ban were imposed" neutral, no matter what word you put in front of it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions based on the December 2015 unblock request, I'm going to ping all of the various participants in, and the closer of, that unblock request, who have not already commented here: [336]: Prodego, Mike V, Reaper Eternal, DoRD, Beyond My Ken, BusterD, Johnuniq, DGG, Graeme Bartlett, Jenks24, Xaosflux, Thryduulf, Begoon, NinjaRobotPirate, Brustopher, Worm That Turned, Ivanvector, BD2412, Salvidrim!, Epicgenius, Antidiskriminator, Jonathunder. The wording of the close was "User unblocked (with provision to avoid large scale, controversial actions) per consensus here." Softlavender (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• In response to the ping, I looked at this mess a while ago and decided that getting involved would be a mistake. Supporting the page moves would support the kind of activity that is very destructive in a collaborative community, while not supporting them would suggest that Wikipedia should not have extended battles over important issues such as hyphens and title case. My ideal would involve someone working out how peace and quiet could be achieved by indeffing the fewest number of good editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves because it is clear from the evidence presented here and in the linked discussions that (a) Dicklyon is interested in making everything conform to his opinion of what the manual of style suggests should be be the case rather than understanding (or apparently attempting to understand) the topic at hand or why people are objecting to the moves (objections may or may not be correct, but they must be addressed not dismissed without thought); and (b) they have breached the conditions of their unblock (for the record, I consider an average of more 1 or 2 requested moves per day over a month or to be engaging in mass moves because page moves are your focus, not the content of the articles being moved). If I thought myself an uninvolved administrator I would impose this ban as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBATC. The principles of that arbitration case are also worth repeating here, as some seem to have forgotten them, "The English Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MoS) is a guideline, or a set of "best practices" supported by consensus. The MoS is not a collection of hard rules.", "Behavior that violates Wikipedia's policies, even if driven by good intentions, is still inappropriate. Editors acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." (that this thread exists is reason enough to show that Dicklyon's behaviour is disruptive, that others are trying to characterise it as an interpersonal dispute actually supports this) and the first rememdy "[Editors] are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style [and] the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE')…". Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• (responding to ping) Support ban from page moves. Clearly, the expectations when unblocked have not been met. Jonathunder (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• NOTE: I don't think a lot of the Opposers have properly read the proposal. It reads: "Dicklyon is permanently banned from moving any page. He may request page moves through WP:RM, allowing for discussion and consensus to be reached." There is nothing draconian about this proposal, especially since it falls perfectly in line with the conditions of his unblock a year ago: [337]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. I have not followed Dicklyon at all since the unblock request over a year ago, except for seeing him at a move review quite recently on a topic not related to this. I recall suggesting that he be banned from bold (undiscussed) page moves for six months; I'm unsure if that was formally imposed but he seems to have abided by it anyway. The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not. If some of those discussions result from examples of Dicklyon boldly moving a page, it appears to have been done in response to consensus reached in a clearly related discussion, and at any rate he was not banned from doing so at the time. If consensus is reached for the proper way to treat a particular situation on one article, it's needlessly disruptive to expect to hold a separate 7-day discussion for every other article where that exact situation also arises. Or to put it a slightly different way, each individual rail article is not an opportunity to rehash the same tired old MOS debates. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose all sanctions (responding to ping) per Sandstein. I also agree with SMCC "ANI is not the venue for settling content disputes, and this is entirely a content dispute." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Antidiskriminator: This is not entirely a content dispute. Please read the evidence presented by several people here about ignoring of past consensuses, refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, and acting contrary to the conditions imposed when he was unblocked. You can disagree that these are problematic and/or that they rise to the level of sanctions if you wish to, but pretending they don't exist is not an acceptable way forwards. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I think we should very much ignore your accusations of "ignoring of past consensuses" and "refusal to engage in meaningful discussion", since these are brand new allegations, not previously mentioned here by anyone. If you want to taken seriously, please withdraw or correct your comments, or provide links to what you're talking about, or say what accusation in this thread you meant to refer to. This is not a forum for you to just make up shit about me. Dicklyon (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Several other editors directly refuted your position and "evidence presented by several people here", with comments such as::

• "The discussions linked by the proposer appear to be examples of Dicklyon constructively commenting in a requested move discussion whether he initiated the discussion or not."
• "Look, it is not Dicklyon's fault that the community has failed to reach a clear consensus on the underlying issue; i.e., the role of MoS at en-wiki. He is doing what he feels is right in the absence of clear and unambiguous guidance, and we should not be scapegoating him for our own failure."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is definitely just a content dispute. The obvious proof of this is that Dicklyon moves a lot of articles (generally a category at a time, a sane cleanup strategy) and gets no "controversy" about it except from a couple of WP:FACTIONs on handful of extremely narrow topics, and they oppose again and again and again tendentiously no matter how much RM precedent goes against them, until there are no articles left for them to argue about because the job is done. Virtually without exception, they're trying to impose an off-WP style from specialized sources onto a general-audience encyclopedia, and trying to rope off "their" topics from the applicability of site-wide style and naming-convention guidelines and the article titles policy (which, no, is not "just a guideline"). If there were a legitimate behavioral/process problem with Dicklyon, the animosity toward his moves would be much more common and widely distributed across numerous of topics, not coming solely from a few that are world-renowned for attracting excessive fan-geekery (e.g., guns and railways). This "specialized-style fallacy is characterized by the view that "normal rules of English don't apply to us, because our topic is magically special and has its own rules that everyone must follow even when writing in a completely different kind of publication from ours". The last time such an insular group of editors tried to push their special pleading in a community-wide and lengthy RfC, the community answered 40 to 15 against, all policy rationales against, the general-audience reliable sources against, even some specialist sources against, and almost all the supporters were from the same wikiproject.

When it comes to down-with-WP-guidelines advocacy, most of the exceptions to the specialized-style fallacy pattern are motivated instead by misguided and ill-informed nationalism (cf. MOS:LQ and MOS:JR disruption), which is arguably worse but identical in the "consensus keeps going against me, but I will never give up" behavior.

How many times do we have to deal with this, with the same consensus outcome, before such "I'm going to make it my mission on WP to try to ream big holes into the guidelines that don't suit my off-WP preferences" behavior is curtailed? Our guidelines exist as a set of game rules so the game can be played instead of everyone standing on the field arguing about how to play. Many of them are arbitrary, no one likes every single one of them, and none of them are liked by everyone, but everyone does agree to play by them or they need to get off the field. The actual disruption is that caused by tendentious resistance to compliance with WP's rules, on the basis of very narrow camps of off-WP expectations, be they specialist or nationalist. WP is not written specifically for American gun collectors, Australian ornithologists, British trainspotters, or Canadian cat breeders; the way that members of such affinity groups write amongst themselves is confusing and unhelpful to WP's readership at large. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a special-interest blogging platform.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to ping - Well, it took a while to read through this and the December 2015 unblock request, but on the totality of the information I've just read, I must support the proposal. If Dicklyon is correct that his changes truly represent community consensus, and are not simply a case of blindly following MOS (almost always a bad thing), then it would seem to be no big deal to require him to use the RM process to make the changes in capitalization he deems appropriate. My opinion is unfettered by any knowledge of, or preference for, whether "line" or "Line" is best, although I would imagine that it would depend on what the railway itself used. In any even, those discussions can take place at RM. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, it would be much more disruptive to run all non-controversial moves through RM discussions. I'm perfectly happy to use that process on any single or multiple moves that are controversial; controversy is easily signalled by a revert, but very few of my moves are ever reverted, which seems to suggest that they are not controversial. As I and many other here have pointed out, they generally follow clear consensus, which would make multiple new RM discussions the disruptive way to go. Even in this discussion, nobody has been able to point out which moves they would consider to be controversial, other than the few I discuss below, which I believe were dealt with correctly to and to most people's satisfaction. So I remain unclear on what problem you are thinking you are addressing by asking me not do page moves. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am unconvinced by your argument that being required to use normal processes can be "disruptive". At worst, you might have to wait for a consensus decision instead of getting the instant gratification of doing it yourself. That's not "disruption", although it may be an annoyance for you, but considering the commentary here, it seems as if it would serve the benefit of the community at large. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I do use normal processes, always, and have no objection to doing so. The reason an RM discussion is not the normal process for uncontroversial moves is that it involves time and work from a significant number of editors; doing this for routine uncontroversial moves would therefore be "disruptive" in that it would pollute the already-big RM workload with lots of extra noise. Instead, let's continue to use RMs for ones that are challenged, or reasonably look like they would be challenged (and very few of mind end up in this category; nobody has even attempted to show a bunch for which RM would have been more appropriate). Dicklyon (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think that's what "disruption" is generally taken to mean, but in any case, you can minimize any problems by ganging together requests that all have a similar rationale, instead of filing a separate one for each article, can you not? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the multi-RM is less disruptive than a bunch of individual ones. That's why I did one at Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. After the closer noted that "Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'," was I to then do another one just like it? Or move on? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If the others were not of the form "Place A to Place B line", then yes, you were, since the closer was only referring to articles of that format. "Place A to Place B line" is a description, whereas "Name Line" could be either a description or a proper noun, depending on circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

BMK, thanks, that's as much as anyone has been able to say about which of my edits might be considered controversial. And it agrees with the ones discussed already that were challenged (Bittern Line and Wherry Lines that I reverted, Wirral line that the querrier decided to agree with me on, and the Woodhead line and Huddersfield line there were reverted and then later downcased by RM consensus); we also discussed Xxx Valley line a bit, and I think Xxx branch line was pretty well agreed to be descriptive. Beyond all these, I still had perhaps 10 or 20 moves of British named lines that I did in recent months, none of which were challenged. I don't think this is "mass" quantities, and it would have been a lot more productive for someone to challenge them if they had an issue than to bring me to AN/I as Mjroots did while he had open his odd proposal to capitalize Line everywhere. Thanks for your input, and do let me know if you see any that you'd like to take to RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you there. There are numerous ways to "challenge" your moves. One is to revert them one-by-one, opening separate discussion on multiple talk pages, which is pretyy inefficient and can lead to contradictory result, and another is to bring them to a noticeboard for collective consideration as a whole. I don't think you can blow off the changes that weren't reverted on that basis, since here they are, after all, being challenged. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're not saying that AN/I is an appropriate place to challenge moves, are you? If any of my moves are to be challenged, I would think doing so somewhere else would be appropriate, as was done with the few I mentioned; others related were discussed implicitly in Mjroots' proposal to upcase all lines – a proposal that got zero support, and did not lead to more downcasings being challenged than the handful that have been discussed; and that was months ago. So why is he bringing it here now? And why are you piling on? I still can't get anyone to say what the actual complaint is, other than that I work too much, and I can get that at home. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AN/I is a perfectly reasonable way to challenge multiple moves made withing a short period of time, yes, because questions of behavior come into play. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, challenge away then; which moves of mine do you find controversial, in what time period? Nobody else is willing to answer that oft-repeated question. Dicklyon (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Stonewalling at other noticeboards is pretty easy but at ANI people are welcome to look at the overall picture and decide whether it would be desirable for the ongoing disruption to continue unchecked, or whether participants should be requested to back off. Who cares if all your page moves are golden, the point is they are causing disruption. It appears the page moves are to "fix" dashes and letter case in titles, and the question to be resolved at ANI concerns whether the fixes warrant the ensuing disruption. My humble opinion is that they do not. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So your contention is that my edits may be all OK individually, yet disruptive in the aggregate? Gee, thanks, for your appreciation of my hard work. And please note that there have been exactly zero complaints involving a dash, so if you are introducing such a complaint, please be more explicit, lest someone get the wrong impression that any of my dash fixes have been controversial or challenged. I have discussed already the very few caps changes that were disputed, so if you see a way that any of that was disruptive, please say so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Objection to canvassing: Softlavender's mass invite of almost entirely people with an old bone to pick against Dicklyon was inappropriate. The previous discussion from which opponents have been harvested was't even related to the current matter but was about mass and controversial moves. The current discussion is about non-mass moves, use of normal RM process, and moves that are to comply with guidelines and thus are not controversial ("I don't like the guideline and won't stop fighting against compliance with it" isn't what "controversy" means in this context; "tendentious editing" is a better description). It is completely unreasonable for Dicklyon to have been instructed in the previous ANI to stop doing mass, controversial moves, yet now to be pilloried (by a mega-tagteam) for actually complying with that and sharply limiting his move-related activity. This ANI should just be closed as "no actoin", and should have been already many days ago.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 15 out of 18 commenters supported Dicklyon's unblock [338], so it's not true that any of these had any bones to pick with him; the 3 opposes were based on the socking, not on personal disputes. Plus "large scale" does not mean "automated" or "semi-automated". Since his unblock 13 months ago, Dicklyon has done virtually nothing but page moves. -- often about a hundred a day, thousands per month, and tens thousands of page moves in those 13 months. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC); edited 05:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Exaggeration serves no useful purpose. My move log shows fewer than 100 moves since this began 9 days ago; 1000 takes us back to June. Please review my recent moves and see if there are any that you think should have been treated as potentially controversial, besides the few railway line caps of last quarter that Mjroots came here about. Why fan the flame of his content dispute into this much drama, even without any specific complaint, and fuel it with exaggerations that are essentially just lies? Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My count was via scrolling through your edit history (and Control+F'ing the word "move") since your unblock in December 2015. I didn't check your move log (did not recall how to do that or that move logs existed), and I see now that my count was inflated by the repetition created by Talk pages and the newly created pages resultant from the moves. The correct count (subtracting the concomitant talk pages), from the move log [339], is 2,500 moves in the 13 months since your unblock. I will amend my post. It is true that you have done very little except move pages since your unblock. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for counting; that 2500 is a bit below my self-reported estimate of nearly 3000. And it is certainly not true that I've done very little else, not that it matters here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

And I take it from your response that you haven't yet found any that you would consider controversial. Please do keep looking. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You have done very little else, as anyone can see via your contribution history (and using Control+F move if desired): [340]. And by the way, I'm not going to edit war over your insistence on misplacing your response to me in the incorrect chronology, but please be aware that WP:TPO allows other editors to correct the layout of discussions, and that new replies to existing posts which have already been replied to should be below the first reply, not on top of it, to preserve the correct chronology. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So you're not going to move it a fourth time? Did you notice that WP:TPO also says "normally you should stop if there is any objection"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still asking whether you saw anything in there that you'd characterize as controversial. I guess not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

You are misquoting WP:TPO; what you quoted was regarding actually editing or removing comments, not merely correcting layout. Softlavender (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, got it. I'll take that as you giving up on trying to find any of my edits that you would consider "controversial". Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I would have to agree that "large scale" does not necessarily mean "doing everything at the same time", but can reasonably mean "making a large number of changes within a relatively short period of time." Certainly, Dicklyon's actions seem to violate the spirit and purpose of the unblock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, please don't be silly. You've been here long enough to know that as long as all the editors who commented on a previous discussion are notified, regardless of their comment at the time, it is not considered WP:canvassing to get more input on a discussion by notifying all previous participants. I haven't actually counted (and don't intend to) but my impression is that the people who said they came here in response to Softlavender's pings are about equally divided between pros and cons. So, really, maybe you'd like to strike your comment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would not. It's extremely irregular to go dig up previous but only tangentially related disciplinary discussions and try to get everyone from them to come squabble at the new one. There's nothing constructive about it; it's just WP:DRAMA-mongering. If we did this normally at ANI, almost every discussion on this page would be a morass of mass-pings, and people with grudges they've been suddenly and pointlessly reminded of piling on with off-topic commentary about what happened in a previous ANI/AE/RFARB/whatever instead of the facts of the current one. Don't pick scabs, don't kick sleeping dogs, don't manufacture additional dispute in a venue meant for resolving it. The point of WP:CANVASS is to not draw lopsided-attention to a discussion; notifying "everyone" when the majority of the ping recipients were opponents last time is not neutral. The fact that it hasn't turned into a dog-pile just demonstrates that the present request has no merit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but you're entirely wrong about this: notifying all editors involved in a previous discussion is quite regular, and happens all the time. WP:CANVASS even mentions it specifically as an appropriate notification:

Examples include: ... Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) ... The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive thm.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.

Softlavender's pings met all these requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose all sanctions per Sandstein and SMcCandlish, and everyone else who has already cited their analyses as reason to oppose this proposal. This is pretty much TLDNR but In have tried. I observe the tone of the arguments posed to be diametrically opposed - reasoned, logical, a-personal and objective and, in the support of the ban, the converse (all-be-it a broad-brush observation). Controversial is perhaps not well defined. Just because something is opposed, does not, ipso facto make it controversial.Cinderella157 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but it does make it disputed, and as far as WIkipedia is concerened that is the same thing. "Controversial" really only comes into play on BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem considering the opposed or disputed ones as controversial; but there are very few of those, and they've been appropriately responded to. It's the claim of "mass controversial" actions that has no backup. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia has never had any kind of human-resources management, and as a result we don't use our human capital well at all. We're volunteers, so we do what we think we want to do. In fact, certain activities can be highly addictive. A talented editor such as Dicklyon should not be spending his time fighting over capitals, commas and dashes, certainly not to the point where he's repeatedly blocked and threatened with topic bans. Something has gone wrong when that happens. Dick, it's making people unhappy, and I can't imagine that you're enjoying it much either. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. Dicklyon (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• As long as there is no edit warring, Dicklyon has the right to be bold, others have the right to revert him and then both have an obligation to discuss (via WP:RM, perhaps). So far as I can tell, there is no evidence that Dicklyon is not following this basic Wikipedian process. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• You may have missed the point a little. The basic underlying question is not whether Dicklyon follows Wikipedia processes, but whether his actions fulfill the requirements of his December 2015 unblock, which had the proviso that Dicklyon "avoid large scale, controversial actions." So, to answer Dicklyon's question somewhere above - yes, a move which you made as part of a single or double or triple move could well be a problem if it is part of a "large scale" group of actions, which this does appear to be. Further, he states himself (somewhere in this voluminous thread) that he has no problem in considering any disputed move of his to be "controversial", so there we have both forks of the unblock proviso. Absent Wikilawyering, the terms of his unblock seem quite clear to me, and his violation of those terms just as clear. Any other considerations that have been thrown in to this discussion by various people are really irrelevant; the bottom line is: "Did Dicklyon violate the terms of his unblock, or did he not?" I have no brief for or against Dicklyon, but it's clear to me that he did, and therefore should be sanctioned in some way. The hardest sanction would be to restore the block that was lifted in December 2015, but that doesn't appear to be necessary or appropriate. The current proposed sanction is minimal and appropriate, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Why not make a special page for proposed page moves where anyone can announce proposed page moves? Then after some set time the pages will get moved, unless there is a consensus against it as judged by an Admin. Count Iblis (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• • That's precisely what WP:RM, and specifically its sections regarding technical requests, is for. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Reluctantly support. Though I don't always see eye-to-eye with him regarding the importance of conformity to the MOS, (largely because from what I've seen the MOS's composition is dominated by a handful of editors and their personal preferences, not really to a broad base, and there's quite a bit of tail-wagging-the-dog regarding the MOS), I know Dicklyon largely edits in good faith, but I do find that he can be obstinate when it comes to style issues and he relies too much on google tests when making his arguments. What I'm seeing here is the need for him to essentially slow down when it comes to page moves. These proposed restrictions will do just that. Being told you have to follow a standard Wikipedia process is not burdensome, just a move to ensure consensus actually exists at the article level, instead of being imposed. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Response from Dicklyon

Quite a Saturday morning surprise here, after a long spell of routine work with relatively little pushback from editors of the affected pages. Yes, I move a lot of pages, largely for style and punctuation reasons. In the last 12 months I've probably moved nearly 3000 pages, that is, an average of nearly 10 per day, with bursts as high as 30 moves on a busy day. None of this is done "in mass" using tools; it's almost always done carefully, checking sources and history, though there have been exceptions where I made mistakes due to insufficient care.

The current complaint seems to be all about the railroads, where there was a cluster of British line articles where caps were widely applied to generic words, and compound "narrow gauge" when used as a modifier was lacking the hyphen that would help a reader parse it. I usually follow WP:BRD, doing a bold move, and discussing it if it gets reverted. But very few have been reverted.

Mistakes

Yes, I've made a few mistakes, like moving again after not noticing a revert in two cases that I'm aware of.

• Take a look at Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, where I confessed to that mistake and opened a discussion. The move passed, and generally reaffirmed the idea that "line" should be lowercase except in cases where sources support interpretation as a proper name, such as Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.
• On Bittern Line and Wherry Lines, I immediately apologized, self-reverted, and cleaned up all incoming links when Mjroots reverted one and gave good evidence that these are treated as proper names. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Foo Line or Foo line?
• In a couple of cases I got interrupted or forgot what I was doing, and didn't finish checking replacements via search-and-replace, and left some very wrong styling in the middle of book titles that I didn't intend to touch, as Andy Dingley pointed out on my talk page. I apologized of course, and make no excuse for such occasional lapses of care, but it's not the usual thing or worth a complaint at AN/I.

Downcasing line

I started a big multi-RM back in November on this: Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Closer Bradv concluded that "there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word 'line'. This consensus matches the original proposal, so we can move them all as proposed." This was after a no-consensus close at Talk:Settle–Carlisle line that approved the en dash between place names but left the line case undecided. In all cases, my opinions, and subsequent moves, were aligned with the consensus, and with the guidelines of our MOS.

Reviewing my notifications for reverts, I found one more move reverted in the last month, at Wirral line. The reverter notified me, we had a quick discussion, he withdrew his objection, and I moved it again. That's successful WP:BRD in action. Then Redrose64 move protected it for move warring, which seems kind of silly after a peace treaty where everyone is happy.

Walking a fine Line

In the November discussion that Mjroots links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent_article_moves_removing_capitalisation_of_.27line.27, my "opponents" express opposing views: Rcsprinter123 says "we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis...", while Andy Dingley says "These need to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis." I'm generally somewhere in between. As Andy says, each one needs to researched and decided; but in the past it was done Rcsprinter123's or Mjroots's way, in which they were all made arbitrarily "consistent" by capitalizing. For most, sources don't support caps, so those are the ones I was moving. In almost all cases, the move I did was either not reverted or sustained after discussion, so I think that indicates that I've mostly researched things correctly. Where I haven't, I'm happy to be shown, and fix it. And any one that Andy thinks needs to be discussed, he can revert (but probably not in bulk as Nathan A RF and Rcsprinter123 did, which got them slapped around a bit there). Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Narrow gauge

One editor, Railfan23, told me that it's British to not bother with the hyphen when using "narrow gauge" as a modifier, as in Narrow-gauge railway. He didn't revert me. I showed him that he was wrong, that in books, the hyphen there is about equally more common in British English as in American English. Other editors supported that, both on my talk page and in an RM about something in which I said that if we going to move it, or not, we should fix the hyphen to help the reader parse it. Given the obvious support in sources and among editors, I went ahead and did a bunch of these, with almost no pushback. Another editor, Bermicourt, came later to my talk page with the same Br/Am theory, and I pointed him at the other discussion, and he agreed to disagree, ignoring the evidence.

A huge number of my edits (as opposed to moves) in this space were in articles that obviously never had the attention of anyone who understands typography or style, wikipedia's or otherwise. Tons of spaced hyphens needed to be fixed to unspaced or spaced dashes, or unspaced hyphens, depending on context. This took a lot of work. Similarly, the titles had been made by the same editors and never really looked at for style or otherwise in so many cases. I'll willing to be reverted and discuss when someone disagrees, but there were very few reverts or talk items in this area, and the ones there were were based on the made-up theory of Br/Am differences in hyphenation.

By the way, I'd love some feedback on 2 ft gauge railways in South Africa; my move to Two-foot-gauge railways in South Africa might not be ideal. I have generally avoided hyphenating a dimension with units onto "gauge", but starting the article title with a number seemed like a bad idea, too. There are more like this to be decided, so this would be a good place to start with constructive feedback. Maybe South African railways of 2 ft. gauge or South African railways of two-foot gauge? On the other hand, Two-foot gauge railways in South Africa would appear to be perfectly conventional, too, though the half-hyphenated form strikes me as wrong and unhelpful. Any style guides address such questions?

British narrow gauge slate railways

See Talk:British narrow gauge slate railways#Requested move 30 December 2016 where we talked about the hyphen extensively. The non-admin closer Bradv said "The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus to keep this where it is, as some of the railways listed are elsewhere in Britain, and it is felt that there isn't enough content to write separate similar articles for Cornwall, Scotland, and England. (non-admin closure)." This comment about British vs Welsh had no relationship to the other part of the discussion, which was not part of the proposal, to hyphen "narrow-gauge" in that context. Given the apparent consensus to do so, and given the closer's lack of any comment on that question (not to mention that this non-admin doesn't know the difference between no consensus and "consensus to keep this where it is"), I went ahead and did the less controversial hyphen move. This pissed him off and he reverted it, which is fine, then he came to my user page to threaten me about it, and now he's here. Was this reverted bold move really an actionable offense, or suitable for a non-admin to be threatening to have me blocked? Seems to me re-opening a more focused RM discussion there would be the right path now.

Dashing through the snow

Softlavender has added a complaint above: "Adding hypens and en-dashes makes searching more difficult; people have objected more than once but he doesn't seem to be getting the message." I don't know where this is coming from, and she won't say. I have received no objections to any of the hundred of dash fixes that I've done, that I can recall. They are uncontroversial. Or is she backing up Railfran23 on his problem with Narrow-gauge railway and such? Hard to tell; her answer just re-asserts that objections "are mentioned and alluded to in this thread and are the very reason the thread was opened". Hard to defend against this kind of guilt-by-assertion junk. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent RM discussions I opened

I've opened a number of move discussions when things got controversial. Please review recent ones and see that I'm generally trying to follow WP:BRD, and acting quite sensibly.

• Talk:Huddersfield Line#Requested move 6 January 2017 – currently open; classic case of specialists wanting over-capitalization; so we talk. Closed in favor of downcasing as I had done before.
• Talk:Volcanic Explosivity Index#Requested move 4 January 2017 – currently open; similar deal. But this was discussing fixing an undiscussed move in 2016 of my case fix from 2014.
• Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 – closed in favor of my proposal to use lowercase, after I had been reverted.

Few of my British line moves got reverted, and the discussions (e.g. at Woodhead line) reaffirmed that we follow WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; so I kept at it. On 10 Dec. I also started moving Japanese lines when I noticed a similar cluster of over-capitalization there, but those 7 all got reverted, so I immediately stopped and left it alone; will start discussions there at some point, since sources support lowercase.

The complainer

Mjroots is the author of the ridiculous proposal at this edit to ignore one of our most longstanding guidelines about title capitalization, so should not be taken too seriously; he wrote there:

Proposals

1. That all railway line articles are housed at the title that has "... Line" in capital letters (Foo Line, Foo Branch Line, Foo Main Line etc).
2. That all such articles are moved protected at Admin level.

Mjroots has since withdrawn the proposal; nobody supported his call to cap all lines or to call for admin move protection. Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Carry on

Six days into this mudfest, I'm focusing on uncontroversial dash and comma fixes (avoiding railroads, hyphens, and caps while this is open); moved about 46 articles today, plus 3 technical requests, and editted perhaps 100. I hope that everyone can see that this level of "mass" moves is just a lot of work. And if anyone thinks that any part of it is controversial, I hope they'll just say so. So far, no objections to such moves (since the WP:JR thing settled about a year ago, and MOS:DASH way before then). Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

And after all this pile-on, including the new bunch that Softlavender invited "So that we can get more of a consensus of opinions", still nobody has provided anything like a list of moves that they think were controversial. Still nothing but the few I discuss in this section, and perhaps a few more older ones; a 1% effect. If nobody can even point to what the complaint is about, why is it still open? Dicklyon (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Several great editors have been indeffed because they irritated other good editors too much and too often, with no commensurate benefit to the encyclopedia (I'm thinking of people who, among other things, did thousands of automated edits to impose their preferred wikitext style). I have not looked at the core issue in this report recently, but I recognize some of the names above and the mere fact that they are pissed off should be enough for a collaborative contributor to back off and let time pass, then use another method rather than trying to impose their strict reading of whatever guideline is being relied on as justification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:RM is the prescribed method for potentially controversial page moves, though, and Dicklyon is following it. Are you alleging bad faith in his interpretation? If so, you'd better have strong evidence. Getting titles consistently using English correctly (per our own style guide and the major off-WP ones it is based on) with regard to capitalization, hyphenation, etc., is objectively a benefit to the encyclopedia. Your post seems to amount to "People have been indeffed for doing useless and destructive things in a disruptive, thousands-of-automated edits manner, so be warned! You, too, will be indeffed – for doing useful, non-destructive, non-disruptive things, slowly and manually, and following both WP's behavior and style rules, plus using process correctly – just because me and my handful of friends are not getting our way and want to have a tantrum about it, rather than go to WT:MOS or WT:AT and see if consensus will change like we're supposed to." Does not compute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, S, John is not among those whining that I should be sanctioned for my work. But I agree his warning is a strange one. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

---

Respond below; please don't insert comments inside my comments. Dicklyon (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

My proposal is ridiculous? Maybe it is in Dicklyon's eyes. It it doesn't gain acceptance then I won't dwell on it. What I am trying to do it prevent further instances of arguing over page moves, both with that proposal and the one up for discussion here. Regulars here at ANI will appreciate that it is rare occurrence when I start a thread here. I try not to let it get so bad that such action is necessary. The impression I get from Dicklyon is that he is firmly in the WP:IDHT camp. So here we are with the page move ban under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I do hear loud and clear that you do not like me changing "Line" to "line" in any article titles, and that you'd prefer all such to be capitalized in titles, whether proper name or not. I just think that proposal, being contrary to WP:NCCAPS, is way off base. And when it got no traction in discussion, you surprised me with an AN/I complaint, which seems equally extreme. As for arguing over page moves, that's what we do routinely at WP:RM; we can do more of it or less of it, but cutting it off by ignoring longstanding titling policy and guidelines seems like a non-starter, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Mjroots proposal is nonsensical. The first part ("my topic is magically special and so must be immune to WP's style guidelines") is why we have WP:CONLEVEL policy, otherwise every wikiproject and other clump of editors would declare their pet topics exempt from every guideline and policy. The second part is why m:The Wrong Version was one of the community's first essays; it wisely mocks the idea that administrative power should be used to lock articles in some supposedly correct form.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is Mjroots an admin? It appears he prefers a BRP (bold–revert–protect) approach, per this admin action. Dicklyon (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin, have been for 7 years. Perhaps you would have preferred that I indeffed you rather than starting this discussion? Believe me, I was close to doing it. As for the locking of the Harz Narrow Gauge Railways article at a title which it had been at since April 2009, if there is any admin who thinks that my action was heavy-handed, please feel free to remove the move protection from the article. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mjroots. IMHO, admins should stick to resolving behavior issues. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: in part, this is a behaviour issue. Contrary to what Mandruss has claimed above, it is not a personal dispute between myself and Dicklyon. There are many other editors who have challenged his page moves over a number of months. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I appreciate the ping, as I would like to correct your mischaracterization of my words. I suspect you're referring my phrase "ideological witch hunt", and witch hunts are not personal disputes between two editors. I don't think I referred to you explicitly or otherwise. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: - I may have misinterpreted in the face of comments like "I don't give a damn what you think" from a 10-year editor as referring to myself. I don't think I've ever said that. I do give a damn about editors opinions. If I think they are wrong then I'll engage in reasoned argument without resorting to name-calling, incivility and the like - pretty sure I've managed that here. As I said above, there is a specific problem, and an attempt to find a solution to that problem, which we are discussing here. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Referenced comment is on this page, in this complaint. Ctrl+F is your friend. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, seen and understood. Mjroots (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots:, your user page notes that one of your hobbies is railways. I think that's awesome, and sorry we collided on some minor style issues in that content area. However, per WP:INVOLVED, probably it would be best if you would refrain from using your admin powers in such cases, like you did to no useful effect on the Harz article; you can call for neutral admin help as well as any other editor can. And to characterize a single revert as move warring is prejudicial; please don't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the premise of your complain here has your involvement build in: "His moves of railway related articles are often controversial and challenged" and is factually incorrect, since only a few of my moves of railway related articles have been challenged. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Three comments: Mjroots should probably not be crowing about how he was going to indef an editor whom ANI respondents are increasingly defending against Mjroots's less excessive move-ban idea; I don't think it's Dicklyon who was lucky Mjroots did not take such a misguided action, which would have been challenged and questioned even more strongly. I agree that Mjroots seems not exactly administratively neutral about the topic, either. When more and more respondents are telling Mjroots that this is a content dispute not a behavior matter, and evidence (e.g. Dicklyon's actual RM success rate, and low rate of reverted moves) disprove the allegation of disruptive behavior, it's time for Mjroots to just retract; there's clearly not going to be a consensus for sanctions anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• No word in bold from me, but a word of caution: I think this discussion is at the wrong level. Yes, editors who are focused on the manual of style are often frustrating to deal with. Yes, they do all too frequently drive away people who're doing far more useful and productive work than they do. But I think it's important not to take out that frustration on Dicklyon personally. In my view the way to deal with capitalisation is to start a larger-scale discussion about it where we can vent all this obloquy and then get the WMF to come up with a software solution that accommodates the capitalisation preferences of the user on the client side without affecting the server side. (It'd be far more useful than the ill-thought-out rubbish they waste programmer time on at the moment.)—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended comment by ClemRutter

Putting a break here, as this comment by CR is only partially on-topic, and necessitated a lengthy response; this side discussion shouldn't impede others' participation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong comment As I have never sought to be an admin, and rarely if ever touched a railway article I do not usually comment on admin pages. I also have respect for editors real lives and try not to follow up on poor behaviour over Diwali, Hannukah, the 12 days before Epiphany etc. I recognise and appreciate the efforts of the team SMcCandlish/DickLyon in trying to enforce consistency- but despair that they cannot accept when they are wrong. I am enfuriated when superior knowlege of redundant arcane wiki-procedure is used to stifle debate. Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016 is not closed. The judgement that 5 for and 5 against is consensus cannot stand. Please examine the debate, and see the tactics that were used to enforce downcasting on the name of a line. The title was following MOS:GEOUNITS, end of story. The line was closed after Beeching cuts so it no longer exists, and is now mainly called the Longdendale trail, or the Woodhead Route.

I note that here, the debate appears to have been terminated by an interjection from one of the parties forcing the wrong level of indentation. I was not pinged to inform me that this debate was taking place, finding out in general conversation at the London Wikimeetup. I still do not understand why a fellow admin overrode Redroses edit-warring protection, or why someone slapped an inappropriate frightening looking template on my talk page.User talk:ClemRutter#Just FYI Please view- I have left it untouched as an exhibit.

After the team terminated the debate on Talk:Woodhead line#Requested move 17 December 2016, I opened a new section Talk:Woodhead line#Procedure and what we have learned There are two ways forward, one is sitting in the newspaper archives at Stockport Central Library for several days, or we can refer back to MOS:GEOUNITS and look for precedent and implication. MOS:GEOUNITS (is part of CAPs policy) and I cited Panama Canal for an example of a linear geographical feature, then there is the Kiel Canal, Suez Canal and of course the big ditch itself the Manchester Ship Canal. All these exist have good sources to verify the ultimate word is capitalised. Very little is now being written about modern UK lines, but we did start an article on the Ordsall chord : it had to be capitalised as we got it wrong. All contemporary sources show that it needed to be upcapped Ordsall Chord does follow MOS:GEOUNITS validating the the policy and the providing us with the precedent we need. Even so, if consensus hasn't been reached then right or wrong we revert the spelling to the one used as the article passes from stub to start.

At the point when 'consensus' was redefined to mean what ever it needed to mean- I was fairly convinced that I was a pawn in an edit war, and tonight I fully expect to have my words redefined and some other arcane trivial regulation to be thrown at me.

Can we also include Glossop Line in the list of over-enthusiastic downcapping.

The High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership.

The Glossop Line is part of the High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership (HP&HVCRP). The CRP was reconstituted in 2008 from a Rural

Transport Partnership that had been in existence for over 10 years.

Source:/www.gov.uk/government/uploads

We will find downcased examples, but above we see the modern government casing for the totality of the line. Also if you made a site visit you will find colloquial usage for the short chord from Dinting Junction to Glossop is often downcased, to distinguish it from the chord from Dinting Junction to Hadfield. Yes both exist, and a local still often get it wrong. It is a gross waste of time, to have to explain over and over again why downcasing is an error.presu

This page is not designed to discuss the a feature of British English, but to decide how to persuade a pair of editors from imposing their strong POVs, against policy and consensus. I am not admin so I cannot take part in that discussion- but I would welcome a solution that encourages them to keep up their efforts on working to improve WP, but prevents them from mistakenly editing the title of any article that is written on a UK subject, or has a Use British English tag. Regretfully, --ClemRutter (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully support what you've said - many of the people who have commented here in support of DickLyon are currently attempting to prevent the capitalisation of "Self Loading Rifle" even though it's the proper name and the WP:COMMONNAME of the British Army's former main service rifle. It's purely based on a misunderstanding of military nomenclature, there's no bad faith involved, but the general unwillingness to listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter is part of a pattern with DickLyon - and yes, I'm still annoyed about him saying "What are you smoking?" and then saying it was just a joke when called up on his incivility. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved at L1A1 self-loading rifle, but I have now looked at it. It's an open RM and Dicklyon is participating in the RM process as he is supposed to do. He has not moved that article. If the consensus goes against him, I have no doubt he will defer to it. If it goes against you, I expect the same from you. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of that requires editors to "listen to people who are more well informed on the subject matter". So Dicklyon is conforming to process and you are inventing your own rules of Wikipedia decision-making. I submit that any disruption there is yours and anybody's who supports that sort of reasoning. It seems to me that a large part of this conflict results from editors whose voice volume far exceeds their knowledge of how Wikipedia works. And some all too quick to be highly offended about innocuous comments like "What are you smoking?". It is all becoming very clear. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

[Sorry this is long and detailed, but the mega-post it responds to covered a lot of ground.] @ClumRutter: You must not care much about the capitalization after all, since I just had to create that redirect to Longdendale Trail to fix your redlink. Anyway, If it's now "mainly called" that, then Woodhead line should be moved to that title, per WP:COMMONNAME policy, and the scope adjusted to focus on its modern use as other than a railway line, with the useless micro-stub of content at Longdendale Trail merged in. Why hasn't this been done? Could it because that would raise territorial hackles at a wikiproject that is unusually proprietary, and on a topic that is renowned for attracting obsessives' attention? Even if it's just a temporary oversight, aren't you just arguing heatedly but pointlessly about a moot matter and, worse, also helping push highly personalized drama-mongering about it at WP's kangaroo court, in a "case" explicitly intended to drive away another editor? (Note above that the admin who lodged this ANI said he did so in lieu of personally indefinitely blocking Dicklyon from WP entirely). So, pray tell, what is your justification for this, especially given that you decry style disputation as something that drives away editors? Is it okay to drive away editors as long as they're ones you personally find inconvenient?

"We will find downcased examples ... – That's the end of the matter right there, really. If RS are not consistent on the matter, do not use the Special Capitalization or other excessive stylization. This is a general rule found at MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, and elsewhere, and the same basic principle can also be found in WP:COMMONNAME. You continued: "... but above we see the modern government casing" – So what? See WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP is not written in "Official UK Government Style". Governmental writing has a very strong tendency to capitalize virtually everything on which it focuses, even briefly (especially if there's anything governmental about that itself, e.g. a part of a transit system), and it does this explicitly as a form of emphasis, not because any linguists or any style manuals aside from the government's own would agree it made sense. First rule of MOS:CAPS: Do not capitalize as a form of emphasis.

Moving on, your belief that something is a proper noun does not make it one just because you keep repeating it in the face of evidence to contrary. Dicklyon (and I) have no trouble admitting when RMs do not go our way. We take that in stride and move on to other cleanup. Rather, it is insular camps like various transit-related projects who continue to fight article by article by article against the exact same types of moves even after RM precedent turns against them again and again. (See WP:TE.) When a proponent of one MOS segment (e.g. GEOUNITS at MOS:CAPS) is arguing against others who cite much more of MOS:CAPS (with support from MOS:TM and several others, including non-MoS guidelines like WP:NCCAPS), and that editor is then trying to make his opponents out to be "infuriating" and "despair"-inducing MoS obsessives, that person very badly needs to read WP:KETTLE and find something else to do here.

BTW, you are not interpreting GEOUNITS correctly, and I would know since I wrote most of it. Woodhead line is none of an: institution, organization, or other legal entity; nor city, county, country, or other political or geographical unit. It's a former strip of train track, that was the property of various entities of the first sort, and ran between and through entities of the latter sort. And this was already clearly explained, repeatedly, at the RM. So why are you playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU about it here?

The fact of the matter is that these routine MOS:CAPS cleanup moves are opposed by no one but tiny clusters of one-topic-focused editors who persist, sometimes for years, in trying to mimic styles they find in specialist publications or on "official" signage instead of writing in encyclopedic style for a broad audience. It is a style that minimizes capitalization (not just because MoS says so but because the off-WP mainstream style guides MoS is based on also do the same, thus mainstream, general-audience publications do so – a real-world, average-user expectation of how English works, across all dialects and formal registers). The misguided belief that wikiprojects can declare themselves exempt from site-wide guidelines and policies on a random-preference whim is where the MoS- and WP:AT-related disruption comes from in this and in a high percentage of other instances. It's time for that sort of "our topic is a unique snowflake, so no general rule can ever apply to it" special pleading to come to an end. It wastes a tremendous amount of editorial energy, for no good reason and with no good result. See also MOS:FAQ#SPECIALIZED.

No one would dare try this approach with any other guideline, and it needs to stop with this one. Can you imagine someone, with a straight face, trying to convince us that WP:FRINGE did not apply to feng shui because feng shui is just different and has its own standards? That WP:SAL applies to all lists except lists about cheese? That MOS:TM doesn't apply to heavy metal music because using all-caps, decorative fonts, and fake umlauts are "normal" in metal magazines? That WikiProject Anthropology's templates are immune to WP:TMP? Anyone notice that any time something like this comes up at ArbCom, the result is that wikiprojects are told, yet again, that WP:CONLEVEL policy really does pertain to them too and really is about their behavior (e.g. in WP:ARBINFOBOX, etc.)? Anyone notice that the last time a wikiproject decided guidelines didn't apply to them and they could make up their own rules and require other editors to comply, the RfC turned 40 to 15 against them (with almost all of the 15 being participants in that project, i.e. they got near-zero external support, plus did not even get much support from their own fellows in the same wikiproject)?

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions (and history of precedent in working out their interaction). How many chest-beating, territorial threat displays have to have cold water dumped on them before it is finally understood that even if you refuse to write to conform to WP's style, other editors are permitted to and will fix the noncompliance later? If you submitted an article to Nature or The New York Times, you would conform to their style guide, or an editor there would bring it into conformance before publication. WP is no different, other than we're volunteers here with no deadline, so the compliance often comes along later.

Actually, the article itself suggests why there's this fight-to-the-death push to capitalize in this case: "The Woodhead line has achieved a cult status with collectors of railway memorabilia." It's a fandom matter, i.e. yet another WP:SSF. And now you're here trying to WP:CANVASS people into re-litigating that just-closed RM at a new thread you opened immediately under it? Seriously? At ANI itself? If you think the closer erred, take it to WP:MR, the prescribed process for challenging RM closes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to wonder just what the hell it takes before it sinks in that WP has its own style manual, title policy, and naming conventions...

I have to wonder when it will sink in that the MOS is a guideline and not a religious doctrine and that people like you and Dicklyon aren't its High Priests and Defenders of the Faith? --Calton | Talk 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:POLICY. Any time you believe you have a WP:IAR case to make against the applicability of any guideline (or policy for that matter), you are welcome to do so, and it's up to the consensus of the editing community whether you are making a legitimate IAR claim (i.e., that following the rule – whether it be in a page with {{Policy}}, {{Guideline}}, or whatever on it – will interfere with making an objective improvement to the encyclopedia). It is no accident that IAR is rarely invoked correctly or successfully. IAR does not mean "ignore any rule I don't like or find inconvenient for subjective reasons."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

No, WP:POLICY applies to policies. Guidelines are not policies, and those who try to enforce them as such are mistaken, and they are the genesis of a great deal of disruption. There are rules and there are rules. Policies are the latter, and must be obeyed unless there's a damn good WP:IAR reason not to. The former are guildelines, which are suggestions as to the best practices on Wikipedia, but can be overridden whenever there is a good reason to do so. The failure to understand the differences between guidelines and policies is a major cause of musinderstanding and disuption, and it's high time that admins start to block editors who attempt to enforce MOS guidelines as if they were mandatory, which they are not. Guidelines have consensus, but it is consensus to be a guideline, not to be a mandatory policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

As the shortcut goes to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, I'm pretty sure it's not just about policies. Best practices are best practices. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines may be overridden with a "good reason", while policies require a "damn good reason"? I'll resist the temptation to inquire about the differences, fascinating and nuanced as they must be. A "good reason" is still necessary. Guidelines are the default position, and users wishing to ignore them bear the burden of proof. "Oh, that's just a guideline" is not a good reason. "Our WikiProject wants it this way" is not a good reason. "I disagree with/don't care about the MoS" is not a good reason. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines describe things that are generally the case, but have many exceptions and/or frequently require interpretation about when an how to correctly apply them. It will sometimes be obvious why a guideline doesn't apply in a particular instance, at other times an explanation is needed but it will rarely require lengthy discussion or referenced burden of proof. For example using the official name of a subject as the title rather than the common name when the common name is ambiguous (e.g. I found the other day that the article about the textile design company commonly known as "Laura Ashley" is at Laura Ashley plc (rather than Laura Ashely (company) or similar) to disambiguate it from Laura Ashely which is about a person). Policies on the other hand will only rarely have exceptions not defined in the policy, and those exceptions need to be individually justified when they occur. For example the WP:Image use policy#Privacy rights tells us not to use photographs of people taken where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy but consent was not obtained, this would need a very strong reasons to disregard and would need to be specifically justified - the only example I can think of off the top of my head where this might happen is if the photograph itself is notable in some way and the subject of sourced discussion in the article (maybe it's a photograph that proved a politician was spying for another country). The entire manual of style falls into the category of "guidelines" and must not be blindly enforced as exceptions will not always be obvious to a bot or script. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WARNING! Do not uncollapse in circumstances where bursting out laughing may cause injury or embarrassment. Do not drive or operate machinery until you are sure you know how the collapsed material can affect you.
Just a notice to editors that I have bought movie rights to this thread, and ask everyone who further posts to consider lighting, camera angles, and residuals when commenting. Thank you. Randy Kryn 15:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Threats from SMcCandlish

The following discussion is closed. 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.

---

Having failed to make any case as to why WP should ignore sourced external realities in favour of simplistic styleguides, SMcCandlish ☺ is now resorting to threats and intimidation on behalf of ARBCOM. Has anyone else had one of these little billet doux? User_talk:Andy_Dingley#You_should_probably_be_aware_of_this

Of course I still stand by every word that I wrote here re DickLyon (and see the mess at Talk:L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle), although I admit I was mistaken in having thought that this ANI thread had been archived by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I had one of those and I treated it with the contempt it deserves, as I concluded that it was incorrectly posted to my page - L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle was not and is not subject to any ArbCom sanctions, and the edit he referred to was in fact carried out by someone else. Very sloppy. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said to both of you: a) the template is not a "threat", it's a notice of WP:AC/DS applicability to a particular topic; b) ArbCom requires the notice to be delivered to parties who do not appear to be aware of the DS in question; c) we are not permitted to modify the wording of the notice; d) any editor may deliver it, not just admins, because it's simply a notice, and nothing more; e) the scope is "the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed", not a particular article like a gun or railway article. If, like me, you find the wording of the notices poor and unnecessarily menacing, and/or find that the entire notification process is a bunch of unnecessary WP:BUREAUCRACY, I've been saying this for years, and have (again) raised a thread about these problems at WT:ARBCOM, where you are welcome to comment. @Exemplo347: Please do not play WP:ICANTHEARYOU; it's already been explained to you that the edit in question was your own comment, not that of the intervening editor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I imagined the part where you said you got the Diffs mixed up. Never mind. Let's all move on. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There was a diff confusion about who unhatted your comment. There was no confusion whatsoever about the fact that you made the comment, which personalized a style dispute uncivilly. And it doesn't matter because the point of the template is to notify you of the DS scope, not to object to a particular comment. You have so been notified, whether you accept that or not. As has also already been explained to you. Please actually read what is posted to your talk page, instead of just reacting to the fact that someone dared to post there.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is the venue for you to air whatever grievances you may have. Some of us have an encyclopaedia to edit. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• And now more forum-shopping here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Article_titles_and_capitalisation Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Since Arbcom's DS notices are clearly not threats... Bullshit. Invoking official authority in direct response to comments about oneself can -- and in this case, I think are -- intended to have a chilling effect. SMcCandlish left one of those little gems on my User Talk page for a comment I made to him on this very page, just above. This is not someone doing due diligence, this is someone using cheap passive-aggressive rhetorical tactics to "win" an argument. --Calton | Talk 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not, in fact, 'bullshit.' The notice is perfectly clear and not a threat (as indeed, its very text makes plain). If however you think it is being misused, misapplied, or wielded as a weapon or means of editorial suppression then you are on the right page and a new thread awaits you. If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice, then WP:ARCA is your next port of call. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, complete and 100% bullshit, your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.

If you take issue with the actual wording of the notice... Not even close to the issue, as should be clear from simple reading, so thanks for trying to obfuscate things.

... a new thread awaits you. Genius, this IS the thread, despite (again) your attempts at making excuses for SMcCandlish (like your closing the above) notwithstanding.

Pro-tip: being officious is NOT an actual substitute for knowing what you're talking about. --Calton | Talk 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Request for close

This has been going on for quite a while now, and nothing new is left to be said. Could an uninvolved admin please donate the time it'd take to go through this thread, and close it one way or the other? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Or a non-admin could do it, and immediate adminship would be their reward. EEng 06:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Or tar-and-feathering, whichever comes first. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As thread starter, I concur with the request to close. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

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