Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993

OldSumo326227 Cannon: HERE?

• OldSumo326227 Cannon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've noticed strange edits by this account including copyright violations (some pages were copies from biography.com and had to be deleted, but also material from their talk page), then section blanking here. Never have used a talk page other than to copy material from elsewhere, despite attempts to reach out to them like here. It's unclear what they are trying to do and will not attempt to explain. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Not really. Though it is fine to wait some more before indeffing the user. Capitals00 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by Sameem123

• Sameem123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sameem123 has already been blocked twice in the past year for disruptive editing. Lately, he has been persistent with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Briefly, he wants to add Rising Stars Challenge to the infobox of participants of that annual exhibition game. After his intial bold edits, I reverted and left a message on his talk page at 10:30, 30 June 2018, explaining my objection and inviting him to get consensus. Subsequently, he has not gotten a single supporter, but will not drop the WP:STICK. His responses:

1. User talk:Bagumba 12:18, 30 June 2018 I don’t want to create Wikipedia articles all I want to add to nba players who participate it on event can’t believe you took it off everybody would agree with me except you.
2. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#NBA_rising_stars_challenge 06:42, 1 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA.
   • 17:07, 3 July 2018 Rising stars challenge is accomplishment to any nba players in their first or second year in NBA. You’re not gonna convince me that not necessary to add infobox.
   • 17:10, 3 July 2018 There is consensus to add it info box to any nba players who made in their first or second year in nba just like all stars appearances like LeBron, Jordan, Kobe, KD.
   • 16:49, 4 July 2018 I warned him to WP:LISTEN and to not fabricate "consensus".
3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_34#Rising_stars_challenge 10:27, 1 August 2018 Please add it to nba player in their first or second year in NBA.
   • 13:31, 1 August 2018 I asked: "What is different now than when you brought this up last month ..."
4. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#NBA_Rising_Stars_Challenge 23:40, 17 September 2018 It’s award for nba players in their first and second year in NBA. Please add this award in nba players.
   • 07:56, 18 September 2018 Sabbatino disagreed with Sameem123
   • 10:28, 18 September 2018 I warned Sameem123 about WP:NOTGETTINGIT
5. User talk:Sabbatino 05:01, 20 September 2018 So nba all star game on Sunday is exhibition game and that counts as all star appearances and winning mvp in all star game is same as rising stars challenge please stop making this hard on me and yourself I just wanted to be award.
   • 08:01, 20 September 2018‎ Sabbatino reverts with edit summary of "I'm not going to discuss anything with you, because you keep ignoring what has been told to you by other users"

Sameem123's behavior is captured by guideline WP:CTDAPE, disrupting at "a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles."

Given their last block was for a week, 2 weeks now seems reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the user will post to this thread. How will we handle their continuing unresponsive behavior?—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User Amber Guyger engaged in mass page move disruption

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

....is right now making a massive number of moves to train related articles, with a silly spelling of "high". Urgent action needed please. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember another similar (though smaller) clump of moves from "high" to "hihg" a day or so ago. Was this related? --David Biddulph (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That was by Sap Aptopio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I assume either sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This user seems on a campaign to rapdily move a large number of railway articles, "correcting" the spelling of 'high' to 'hihg'.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This is ongoing vandalism, please block the user until an explanation has been received. Reported to WP:AIV ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I emergency blocked for 31h, now investigating whether I should reblock as vandalism only account. Please help with moving the articles back. (I did not yet template the user, will do it shortly).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User is now blocked by Ymblanter (talk · contribs). Their moves are listed here, not all are railway. I don't have time to revert any as I need to go to work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Reblocked indef, help with move is still needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm also working on cleaning up. Careful to undo bot fixes of double-redirects. DMacks (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ymblanter blocked 31h, but I think this should be indef - there are no edits other than autoconfirm gaming and page move vandalism. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Nb. Ymblanter Extended the block to indefinite (Block log). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Hihg is a reasonably common typo. If the moves had been simply reverted, and the newly redirect pages tagged {{Redirect from typo}} any double redirects would have been automatically fixed, future non-admin moves blocked, and we would have gained some marginally useful redirects. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
  
• Comment 2 Talk:Madrid–Levante high-speed rail network seems to have been lost in the moves. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC).
  

  Thanks, I have restored the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Considering that the user picked the name of a police officer who was involved in a high profile shooting in Dallas earlier this month, it's pretty clear they had nothing but bad intentions. (Considering the deliberate misspelling in "Sap Aptopio", I'm smelling something socky in Texas.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 16:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:CIR issue

Srbernadette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
At the help desk, Srbernadette (and often logged out as IP addresses) constantly asks the same questions. They are always about referencing errors, and nearly always about CS1 errors that they have caused. The fact that they have been editing for ~2 years and constantly ask the same questions, with an inability to learn from their mistakes and act on clear, simple advice shows that their level of competency is insufficient to edit Wikipedia in my opinion. WP:CIR says that " A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. For that reason, it can become necessary for the community to intervene when an editor has shown, through a pattern of behavior, the likelihood that they are not capable of contributing in a constructive manner." This user has spent years asking the same questions, multiple people have been endlessly patient with them at the Help Desk, yet they show an inability to do basic referencing. Therefore, as per the CIR quote above, I believe that it is time for the Wikipedia community to intervene. Evidence of their lack of competency is just shown my the number of CIR-related complaints (and there have been many more on the IPs they have used, although I don't have the IP addresses). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent IPs include User:175.33.45.21 and User:203.132.68.1. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I don't think a topic ban from the Help Desk would help, as they'd still make the persistent errors. I'm instead requesting a block as they lack the competency required to edit English Wikipedia. Don't know if it's because they're young, or their first language isn't English, but they aren't competent enough, and haven't acknowledged any attempts to reach out to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I've lost count of the number of times I've had to warn the editor at the Help desk to not deliberately make errors and come to the Help desk asking for assistance. That's the basic system they operate in; create a deliberate error, then rush to the Help desk with a sorrow-laden request (which would have terms like "I am sorry I couldn't correct the error"; while there're no significant attempts to do the same). This seems to be an attention seeking issue. While the editor has claimed sometime in the past (I may be wrong here, so don't quote me) that they are some kind of an educator in some institution, I think it's a red herring to keep the issue away from bloating up. They also have started editing using IPs to avoid their edits being connected. Despite being warned on their talk page by me to not do the same, they've continued editing while being logged out.

If the editor strictly agrees to edit without being logged out, and to first undo their edits which created the problem in the first place, before reaching the Help desk, they may be allowed to continue with a zero-tolerance warning note. I don't think the editor will even reply here – if they don't comment and give explanations here, just block them indefinitely because this is absolutely disruptive. Simply topic banning them from Help desk is not going to help; they will continue deliberately inserting errors in articles, and maybe go to the talk pages of individual editors. Lourdes 00:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this editor is problematic. If they think that making their requests at the Help Desk logged out will avoid calling attention to them, that is a mistake. Any Help Desk editor who has seen their requests recognizes them from IP addresses, and their making the requests from IP addresses is just annoying. I would assume good faith that they don't make the mistakes on purpose, but I agree that there is a competence problem, and that they should at least be topic-banned from the Help Desk and probably given an indefinite but not infinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, she's back at the Help desk, again asking the mess she has created to be rectified. This isn't going to stop. Lourdes 08:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• For the benefit of non-help-desk-regulars, the situation has already been discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk? a couple years ago. Pinging all editors from that discussion: @Dismas, David Biddulph, Eagleash, Robert McClenon, Maproom, and NQ:. I will also leave notice of that discussion at the HD talk page, since (as far as I can see) this has not been done yet. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And they're at it again under IP 175.33.45.21 - they have five sections on the help desk today alone! Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Srbernadette topic ban from HD and indefinite block proposal

Given the IDHT behaviour of Srbernadette (in not agreeing to undo their error-laden edits, despite being told multiple times) and lack of response at this desk, and given their continuing disruption of articles and at the Help desk by either deliberately or unknowingly inserting errors and then asking other editors to clean up after them, I propose that the community considers topic banning Srbernadette from the Help desk, combining the same with (striking post Ivan and Guy's comments; hopefully isn't an issue with the previous supporters. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)) an indefinite block, until the editor agrees explicitly to not continue such editing behaviour. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Lourdes 08:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per my initial comments. I would only support unblock if they agree that whenever they get errors, they undo their issue, and then read the relevant error messages. I assume this is also applies to their multiple IP addresses, as blocks are given to people not accounts? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support with misgivings - I think this is as close to a "pure" CIR as they come; the editor has nothing but good intentions but a completely baffling incapacity for learning even the simplest fixes for their constant errors. This feels mean but necessary. Note, I think the block is the important bit here - merely keeping the issues away from the Helpdesk will only mask them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block for the editor (including IPs so perhaps the block needs supporting with a ban). I have tried countless times to advise this editor, but he never takes notice of what he's told. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• This looks like a WP:CIR block, not a TBAN. Which are we being asked to discuss? Guy (Help!) 11:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the combination as ... weird. Why would we topic-ban them and also block them? One or the other, not both. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Guy, Ivanvector, point noted and modified. Lourdes 13:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• In that case, support an attention-getting softblock until the user responds and acknowledges the problem and accepts advice on how not to create these errors in the first place. I'm worried, though, that we're just going to send the user into logged-out block-evasion sockpuppetry and end up with them banned, so I hope if that happens admins will consider some leniency. If it's evident they're just disinterested in learning how to fix the errors themselves, then we'll be heading into a CIR indef anyway, I just don't want to jump there right away for someone who is apparently trying to help but doing it all wrong. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support at least a softblock, per CIR. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor works in areas very far from my interests, and I do have sympathy for those at the Help Desk who have tried to help them, and I admit I am new to the case. But the editor appears to be adding referenced content. I see no evidence of an English problem, although I note people have said their spelling is weak (that's hardly unusual). What I do see is someone who has used the citation templates from the get-go and appears to find them very difficult. I note that our guidance for new editors these days assumes the use of citation templates, and also advocates asking at the Help Desk when one has a problem ... so I've followed a hunch and pointed out on the editor's talk page that the templates are not mandatory. I think the editor has a problem with templates, and since they really are not mandatory, that should not be a deal-breaker. I may of course be wrong, but I thought it couldn't hurt in the spirit of AGF. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I think the Help desk regulars have attempted the spirit of AGF since ages. The problem is not their understanding of the citation template; the problem is their erroneous entries. One example from their innumerable postings – on 13 September 2015, three years ago, the editor edited an article and entered the date in the citation template as 13 September 20115.[1] Immediately thereafter, within two minutes of doing this, they leave a message at the Help desk claiming "ref number 100 is a mess - what is wrong?". Cut to three years later, and the story is absolutely the same, with their innumerable postings in-between on the Help desk already resulting in as many amounts of advice to the editor to use simpler referencing systems, or to undo their errors, or to read the letters in red.... The Help desk regulars have seen this for years. You may be new on the scene but you should know what you are AGFing. And of course, please do ping me if the editor ever replies to your note of advice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen this person around the help desk a lot. I'm sure it does get annoying seeing the same person with the same problem over and over. If I were to guess, I'd say this person is probably older - 60s, 70s, somewhere in there, and finds technology daunting. They've learned that if they screw up the reference they can go to the help desk and someone will fix it for them. I think that's the problem, is that people have been fixing it for them. I know people have tried to explain how to fix it, but has anyone actually combined explaining how to fix it with then making them fix it themselves? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  On countless occasions he has been told what the problem is and how to fix it, but he repeatedly comes back and asks the help desk to fix the same sort of problems (as mentioned above, such as obviously invalid dates). --David Biddulph (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  Right, that's what I said, people tell them how to fix the problems, but they don't make them fix it. Some people only learn by doing. Stop doing it for them. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  I have no way to "make them fix it"; I can leave it with the error in place, or revert the edit which inserted the error. I agree that those who keep correcting the errors when requested to do so by the incompetent editor are just encouraging the continuation of the disruptive editing. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  From my reading of the situation I'm with David, though I dislike some of the aggressive language he's used in reply. It seems that the editor has been advised several times how to fix their errors, but they don't. They don't take the advice and don't try to fix it, they just run off and make another of the same errors and then run back to the help desk. WP:CIR is precisely correct here - you can explain all you want to an editor how to fix a thing, but if they won't do it then somebody has to. You can't force anyone to do anything, we can only prevent them from keeping on with making the same mistakes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:05, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

  ONUnicorn, the editor simply refuses to hear any advice – as they have chosen to do by not responding to Yngvadottir's message, to the Help desk regulars innumerable messages over years, to this ANI discussion... With all due respects, if you are proposing that you will lead the way to engage the editor in discussions and are able to evoke a response from them agreeing to change their behaviour, I will withdraw this proposal. Otherwise, you cannot expect Help desk volunteers to again go through more years of similar behaviour. When the editor makes a mistake and runs away after noting it on the Help desk, they simply don't respond to any message to correct their error. How do you propose to handle that? We are proposing a block till they change this behaviour. If you have a better administrative method that you will take up personally (and not expect others to do it), please do mention here and I will be okay to withdraw the proposal. Thanks, Lourdes 03:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not believe there is any reasonable hope that Srbernadette reform her ways; we could try a stern warning, but the real choice is between indef-block and tolerating the negatives because of the positives. (TBANning from the HD is certainly worse than either option.) For the positive, see the contributions, my non-expert view is that Srbernadette is rather productive in the niche topic of British nobility.

The negatives come in two spades: breaking article or reflist layout because of technical mishaps, and disrupting the help desk because of repeated hand-wringing queries; neither of which come even close to outweighing the positive in my view. About the former, adding a reference to the article and breaking the formatting along the way is in my view even a positive; yes, it would be better not to break the layout, but at the end it still gives us a useful ref. About the latter, the volume of queries is rather low (maybe 2-3 per week) and is not impeding the help desk's operation in any significant way.

On the whole I stand by my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk/Archive_12#What_is_the_Help_Desk?: if you don't want to correct her mistakes, don't do it, but don't complain that others do so. Tell others they should not be fixing the mistakes because it encourages the bad behavior, sure, but don't force them not to help either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I believe that Srbernadette is an asset to Wikipedia, adding referenced content, albeit on topics of no interest to me such as the British royal family. Yes, she is incompetent, but she is invariably polite and is not argumentative or disruptive. I find it easy to carry out her requests, by e.g. moving the date of a ref into the "date" field, and have no objection to doing so. I cannot explain her incompetence, but I acknowledge it, just as I acknowledge that there are people who can't calculate 57+26 in their head, and will never be able to despite any amount of nagging. The continuing reprimands issued to Srbernadette by some of the experienced editors listed above remind me of the quotation "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". A block, or the threat of a block, will not reform Srbernadette's behaviour, it will just cause the loss of a useful contributor, who has not violated any rule. If you believe that disruption of the Help Desk is a serious issue, then please try to get Srbernadette to direct her requests to my talk page instead; she has once made a request there (and I realise now that I should have answered it by correcting what she had done, rather than just giving factual answers). Maproom (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Tigrann and Maproom. This editor may have some difficulty grasping usage of citation templates but overall is a positive contributor and not causing any significant disruption.MB 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I am very much undecided on this issue. I would agree that SB overall contributes to the encyclopedia but also share the frustrations expressed by other editors. I quite often fix their errors after requests at the help desk and then return to their thread pointing out what was wrong in the hope that they will gain some knowledge: that doesn't seem to work! Joseph2302 will, I think, remember a now indef'd IP-hopping, disruptive (though possibly well-intentioned) editor to Formula One pages, who, it was eventually discovered, had a connection to a school for special-needs pupils (for which Wikipedia has a page). Some similarities in the two editors' behaviour might suggest something similar happening here. This however, does not grant a licence for disruption as WP:AUTIST and WP:NOTTHERAPY suggest. The IP editor was disruptive in multiple ways though not just in lacking the skills. Overall I think a block or ban to be a bit harsh; it may ultimately come to that but I do not know if there's an effective way of getting SB to improve in these small ways. (Thanks Tigraan for the 'ping'). Eagleash (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  I'm strongly on the Oppose side, but I've seen enough of SB's activity to believe nothing will get her to improve her editing skills. Incidentally - we see plenty of editors who add references in the form of bare URLs - that's more annoying than the behaviour of SB, but no-one threatens them with blocks, eventually some drudge just gets round to filling in the details. Which is worse, adding a ref incompetently and walking away, or adding a ref incompetently and reporting what you've done? Maproom (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  If there is any problem here, it seems to be with the edit errors and not necessarily their reporting those errors to the Help desk. The latter is a product of the former; if the former kinds of edits are banned, such as in some sort of topic ban on certain MediaWiki markup (like citation templates and perhaps tables or wherever else the errors tend to occur), then the Help desk behavior is no longer problematic and any violation of the topic ban results in a block, anyway. I suggested as much below as an alternative to blocking, since I ultimately want to ensure productive editors are retained and support for a block is already significant. (I hope you don't mind the minor refactoring.)

  As for the bare URL references, they may be inferior to well-formated and wikified citations (and in that sense annoying), but they are at least leads for WikiGnomes and the like to clean up. The community tolerates users like me for exactly that reason. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  Considering the significant number of editors with Asperger syndrome and autism who have no problem with competence (and those are only the self-identifying ones!), I do not think it matters whether this editor is among them. Perhaps you meant low-functioning autism in specific, but that is not what WP:AUTIST is about. Regardless, if I am understanding you correctly, I do not think speculating about the cognitive conditions of editors is productive (and may be taken as uncivil), nor is it ultimately relevant. It may, in principle, explain certain behavior; however, what matters is the competence as such as not whatever might be affecting it. Given what you said, I suspect you agree. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: I am unfamiliar with this case and have not reviewed it, so I have no comment on whether any action should be taken, but I do have a suggestion for everyone to consider: If the problem seems to be with the use of CS1 and CS2 templates, or even templates generally, then perhaps a specific ban on using them would solve it? I do not know if that has ever been done, and I generally only cite in CS1 myself; however, if the editor is otherwise productive in providing worthwhile prose and sourcing, then sticking to plain-text contributions with minimal MediaWiki (and HTML?) markup may resolve this. There are plenty such users; the wikification can be left to others, like me.
  If retaining this editor is a net positive for the project, and bare URL references count as a net positive, then this is a way that might achieve that. If not, the conditions of the ban would involve a block for violation, anyway. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment: It's late, so I'm not going to say much now except to point out that SB has only ever edited their own talk page once. And that was to ask for help in a section started by SineBot. I'd be more inclined to help a person if they showed the least amount of effort to respond to questions or guidance. SB has not done that. We only get "I can't do it" type replies followed by another request to make the fixes. †dismas†|^(talk) 02:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• For better or worse, I'm going to point out that Category:CS1 errors has 185,622 pages in it at the moment. One editor creating a handful more errors once in a while probably isn't that big a deal. The problem as I understand it is the repetitive help desk posting: asking for help for the same problem repeatedly after being given advice on how to fix it seems more like deliberate carelessness, like the user has come to expect that someone will just clean up after them. I don't really know what to suggest but I'll try anyway: next time the user comes to the help desk with this same problem, tell them how to fix it, but leave it for them to fix it themselves. If they fix it, great! If they don't, then WP:CIR. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support To put it bluntly, SB is being a child. They are continually asking the same questions again and again and not learning or progressing at all. If a child were to ask you to tie their shoes every day, you'd teach them how. Or give them a pair of slip-on shoes. Either SB learns how to tie their shoes or they're told they have to use A) use bare URLs, or B) leave the error. Let's face it, the error isn't that bad. And it still leaves the bulk of the information there in the reference. It's nothing for someone to come by at some natural or "organic" time and fix it whenever someone gets the hankering to fix some citation errors. SB has always and still continues to have the option of actually replying to someone, anyone, to explain why it is that they can't follow instructions. †dismas†|^(talk) 17:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

New user:MaraprI (sock?) with one edit made substantial changes with citation errors in article: Charles P. Rettig

Undo? I think it's either a sock or promotion. --Balintawak (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Generally, new users are welcomed, rather than reported to ANI. As for 'promotion', possibly, though it doesn't seem that blatant. And if you are going to accuse someone of being a sock, you should tell us who's sock you think it is. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The added content is full of citations to a law firm web site. It doesn't look right to me. I will work on cleaning it up. --Balintawak (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think all new editors should be reported on ANI immediately. This would reduce editor retention to zero, and as older editors die or drop out we'd eventually have no editors at all. At that point there would be no more edit warring, no more conduct or content disputes, and no need for Arbcom. Paradise. EEng 17:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Great idea! --Balintawak (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Commons deleted a photo MaraprI uploaded. MaraprI requested undeletion stating that the law firm holds the copyright and he/she represents the law firm. So at the very least, the editor wasn't unbiased. --Balintawak (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

He is not here to build an encyclopedia

Stefka Bulgaria does not seem to be here for building an encyclopedia. I provide some diffs and leave the judgment to you admins:

1- He removes the contents on the ground that he can't find them in the cited sources, this is while they are indeed supported by the source:

A) Here, he keeps on removing contents. while they are supported by the sources. Again, he removes same content from another article, while the content is clearly seen in the source.

B) Again, the materials he removes here are fully supported by the cited source and I fixed his false removal.

C) In this edit he removes contents regarding bombing of US buildings by MEK, this is while the content is really supported by the source.

2- He writes a misleading edit summary for his edits and dishonestly removes other contents in between (some sort of Gaming):

A) Here, he removes some sourced content from the lead writing in the lead that Aaron Schwartz's source, here labeled as 'PSJLIA', is not reliable. This is while the most of the materials he removes has nothing to do with the Schwartz's source and are supported by the book by Jonathan R. White.

B) In this edit he removes a well sourced sentence, alleging in the edit summary that one of the sources (infoplease.com) is not reliable. Stefka refers to the discussion I started at RSN, where there is no consensus over using 'infoplease.com' and the springer book which uses 'infoplease.com' to cite the 16,000 figure. However there was not any objections against using other sources cited for 10,000 figure. In that discussion, Stefka Bulgaria himself says "...hence this figure [i.e. 16,000] cannot considered reliable". Stefka is clearly GAMING us by removing the 10,000 figure which is supported by other sources.

C) In this edit he removes two sentences each supported by two different sources. In the edit summary Stefka writes ‘Strategic Culture’ is a Fringe source but removes the second sentence cited to another reliable source.

D) Here and here, he pretends to be inserting quotes from a source, but is in fact removing the sourced materials.

3- Miscellaneous:

A) In this edit, he removes a whole section he does not like to see in the article, only because the title of the section is not matching with its content. He could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material.

The above diffs are only a brief overview of his recent edits in MEK and this editing pattern is just repeated in his previous edits. I've already discussed some of the points on the article talk page, although I think this is a behavioral issue and should be addressed by the admins. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka, whether he is doing right edits or not (I don't have a opinion on that), is made in good faith. Saying he is "not here to build an encyclopedia" is really exaggerating. This shouldn't have gone to ANI, you should have waited for his response at the very least. He does a lot of constructive stuff on this site. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But those diffs speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• This repeated filing of complaints towards editors attempting to balance the MEK related articles (which are heavily skewed to the Iranian gvmt POV) - is not reasonable. In regards to the supplied, diffs - 1A - It would seem Stefka removed un-referenced information (as well as info sourced to the Christian Science Monitor) in a BLP article. 1B - is a rather CHERRYPICKED account of the thenation article (including removal this was "one website"). 1C - the first half of the paragraph is sourced to what appears to be a position paper which seems a somewhat dubious source for unattributed use. 2A - this is a student-edited journal that was removed - quite a sketchy source. 2B - [2] seems like a sketchy source, however it says "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - which does not support - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - or rather is a blatant misrepresentation (as a large portion of the fatalities in the conflict were killed by the Iranian government). 2C - The econd sentence is sourced to a state department report - which is sketchy. 2D - seems like an expansion of content based on the source. 3A - perhaps one shouldn't add off-topic content to a section to begin with? Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  And all that being said - that a bit of information passes WP:V ("supported by the source") - does guarantee inclusion - e.g. per WP:NPOV. Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  • • Note to viewers: Icewhiz appears up (needless to say it's sort of hounding) almost when ever I file things against users. @IW: Sketchy sketchy sketchy sketchy...Be realistic. Don't defend others at any price, editors will certainly judge your words and won't be mislead by your comments. You had the same behavior at AE and the other guy you always used to defend, got blocked for the third time. This is not good for you. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I had not intended to comment on this thread until I saw Mhhossein's above comment. I do not believe a user who defended a neo-nazi sock puppet (Expectant of Light) has much room to comment on who or what other users should defend, and I'd further recommend that MH keep WP:NPA in mind. While I do not feel Mhhossein has done much that is actionable, I have found them notably obtuse and overzealous at ANI. Icarosaurvus (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus: Be careful about what you say. You can take it as warning against making personal attacks. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless you didn't actualy defend Expectant of Light the above statement is nowhere near a personal attack. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

That's a point we can rest on...Cheers! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that the user did indeed defend Expectant of Light, I'd say it's most certainly not a personal attack. While I do not believe the two are connected in any meaningful way, other than sharing an interest in Iran, one has to be careful about defending another user simply because they share one's POV; something which Mhhossein has been less than stellar about in the past. Thus, I do not believe the user in question is particularly well qualified to comment on what one should or should not defend. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Icarosaurvus, with your 43 edits to mainspace in 4 years, I really think you should tone it down some lest someone think you're not here. Now, it is true that those who file reports an ANI should expect to come under scrutiny, but what you're doing here is not scrutinizing--it's simply casting aspersions. And whether someone defended a neo-Nazi or not has, as it happens, very little to do with this particular case, unless you can make a connection that somehow involves Stefka Bulgaria's edits. If you can't, stay away. Yes, please consider this a warning for a violation of [{WP:NPA]]. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I primarily edit portals; specifically, Portal:Current events. The idea that only mainspace edits should or do count is ludicrous; mainspace is only part of what keeps our encyclopedia functional. A large part, granted, but if we neglected the other components of this great work, it would not be the respectable site which it is today. While I disagree with your assessment of the above as a personal attack, I will leave this thread alone, unless pinged. Icarosaurvus (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Unless requested otherwise, I'll reply to Mhhossein's remarks on the article's Talk page. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• As requested, here's my review of Mhhossein's comments above:

1. A) Content I removed was concerning Masoud Keshmiri’s alleged affiliation with the MEK: The first source I removed does not mention the MEK, and second source says "The office of the revolutionary prosecutor identified one Masud Kashmiri, a Mojahed, as the secretary of the Prime Minister's office...", which is not the same as confirming that Keshmiri was a MEK member (I have not found a source that confirms the MEK took responsibility for Keshmiri). The IRI blamed numerous incidents on the MEK, many of which turned out to be false allegations. As discussed on WikiProject Iran’s Talk page (and as user Mhhossein is well aware of), IRI sources are not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition groups.
B) The Nation source is being used to support the MEK’s “Alleged involvement in Syrian Civil War”, but source does not mention Syria at all.
C) The section in question was titled “Anti-American campaign”, and the text in the article said: “In 1973 ten major American-owned buildings were bombed including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, and Radio City Cinema.” What the source actually says is “The Mojahedin intensified their armed operations in the years between 1973 and 1975. In 1973 they fought two street battles with the Tehran police, and bombed ten major buildings including those of the Plan Organization, Pan-American Airlines, Shell Oil Company, Hotel International, Radio City Cinema, and an export company owned by a prominent Bha'i businessman.” Nothing in the sources here suggest that there was an anti-American campaign by the MEK (rather, it comes across as deliberate misrepresantation of the source), and I ended up including this information without the misleading insinuation.
2. A) A graduate student (Aaron Schwartz ) thesis was used to confirm that the MEK is currently a militant organization. The following text: “advocates the violent overthrow of the current government in Iran, while claiming itself as the replacing government in exile.” is also misleading (and not encyclopedic). This, on the other hand, would be more a accurate/encyclopedic description: “It was ‘based on Islamic and Socialist ideology’ and advocated ‘overthrowing the Iranian government and installing its own leadership’” (Katzman 2001; Country of Origin Research Information 2009, p.2).
B) This is user Snooganssnoogans’s assessment about using infoplease.com (and the springer book that uses 'infoplease.com') to cite that 16,000 have been killed by the MEK: “The stringency and quality of editorial oversight and peer review varies in publications by commercial academic publishers. That the book cites infoplease.com for that fact is an indication of poor editorial oversight and poor peer review, and reflects poorly on the author. It is sometimes the case that editorial collections (such as this book) are not independently peer-reviewed, and are only comprehensively edited (in terms of substance, not copyediting) by the editor of the edited collection. The book should not be considered a RS for the 16,000 figure.”
C) This report on the MEK reads like it was heavily influenced by the IRI (and there are reasons to believe that this may be the case). Big claims such as that the MEK "conducted attacks and assassinations on Western targets" should be backed up by more than a single report (that has since been taken down).
D) I don’t understand what the complaint is in the first instance (there is a typo error by me, but for the rest I simply updated the text from the Abrahamian source). In the second instance, I used better sources to clarify the sequence of events: The MEK accused the IRI of monopolizing power, which led to a protest where MEK sympathizers were killed, which led to the MEK retaliating against the IRI, which let to the IRI retaliating against the MEK, etc.)
3. A) There isn’t any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict, yet Mhhossein continues to make this allegation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments in response to the above allegations. (@Drimes: can you please see my explanation on his misinterpretations?):

1.

A) Besides the point that 'WikiProject Iran’s Talk page' is not the right venue for making global decisions regarding sources, I can say that there's absolutely no consensus over IRI sources being "not suitable for fact-checking of political opposition." Even you can't find any mentions of 'fact checking' in this semi private discussion he refers to. However, the dispute is not over the reliability of the Iranian sources. Above, he alleged that he had removed ([3], [4] and [5]) the first source since it had "not mention[ed] the MEK". This is while, in P:27 it reads"...subsequent investigations revealed that Kashmiri was an agent of the leftist People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), supported by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and blamed for 17,000 Iranian deaths during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988," and in P:28 it repeats the same thing: " Although the Bahonar-Rajai assassination was solved with identification of bomber Massoud Kashmiri as an MEK agent he remained unpunished."

B) This source clearly supports "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as “revolutionary forces.”" Although the source is commenting on MEK's reaction to ISIL's activities in Iraq, not Syria, it's not a suitable reason to remove such a sourced content.

C) He removed materials regarding MEK's armed acts against U.S. personnel and civil bodies only since the section title. i.e. Anti-American campaign, was not suitable. I've already changed the title, but Stefka gradually removed the whole section based on his self-made allegations. I've now simply restored the section with a new title.

2.

A) Stefka already revealed that his edit summary was not in accordance with his edit.

'B) I think Stefka is digging himself deeper regarding the '10,000 deaths' issue, since we're not even talking about whether or not figure 16,000 is reliable. He has removed the well-sourced figure of 10,000. @Stefka: So, don't say infoplease is reliable or not, since that has nothing to do with our dispute. Stefka is GAMING us by removing the well-sourced 10,000 on an irrelevant basis. Yes, there were no consensus over 16,000 being supported by a reliable source, but we're not talking about that.

C) Again Stefka admits having used a misleading edit summary. In this edit stefka removed, among others, materials cited to a U.S. state report and now he revealed that the removal was only because he though the US report was heavily influenced by Iran!!! So we need to know Stefka's definition of reliable sources. In that edit, the edit summary tell us he's only removed the the materials cited to 'Strategic Culture', which is not correct.

D) Stefka's edit summary ([6] and [7]) reads "Quote from the source[s]". Are the edits only inserting quotes from a source into the article?

3.

I don't say there's "any evidence in the provided sources that the MEK was involved in the Syria conflict", rather I say Stefka "could simply edit the title and keep the well-sourced material" instead of removing them.

The case is really getting time wasting but I think it's worth trying to let the others know what I mean by Stefka's "dishonest" edits.--Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

A majority vote at WikiProjet Iran contended that IRI-controlled sources should be used for IRI positions. The majority vote argued that IRI-controlled sources are subject to censorship, particularly concerning political topics (where covering certain political topics can lead to imprisonment or execution).

Based on the fact that the IRI executes MEK sympathizers, I’ve tried to bring some neutrality to the article by making a distinction between IRI and non-IRI sources; as well as replacing weak sources / fringe statements with quotes from more established scholarly works. Many of these have been objected/reverted by Mhhossein, who comes across as having POV issue here. Mhhossein’s POV-pushing edits include:

• Restoring “Anti-American campaign” title (despite it being deliberately deceptive).

• Trying to establish the MEK is referred to with the derogatory term “Hypocrites” in Iran 1, 2, 3

• Removing well-sourced content: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• POV summaries from sources:

Source: The U.S. government has accused the group of helping Saddam brutally put down a Kurdish rebellion in the early 1990s, and of launching numerous attacks inside Iran.

Mhhossein: MEK assisted Saddam Hussein in "brutally" suppressing the 1991 uprisings in Iraq.

Source: In the wake of the revolution, Khomeini grew suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant and widespread popularity.

Mhhossein: After the fall of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, when Khomeini got "suspicious of Rajavi’s ambitions and of the MeK’s Marxist slant.”

About Mhhossein’s points above, here’s my reply:

1A. “Keshmiri” is spelled “Kashmiri” in the source, which may be the reason why my word search initially gave no returns when I searched for it. Nevertheless, it was the IRI who identified Keshmiri as a MEK agent. Considering that the IRI was pinning whatever it could on the MEK at the time, these need to be presented as allegations rather than facts.

B. @Mhhossein, how is the statement "MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as ‘revolutionary forces’” a valid attribute to the “MeK’s alleged involved in Syria”?

C. @Mhhossein, again, the section was titled “Anti-American campaign” (a title that you you included). Here, I already made a point concerning Mhhossein’s misrepresantation of sources.

2A. As pointed out, there is a POV issue there.

B. First, the source says “Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict, which is not the same as “As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979”. Second, Ploughshares report is not RS, particularly on account of its links to the IRI.

3. Finding titles to random remarks is not my objective at the MEK page.

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Too much boring...hey look, be careful about how you use the sources and edit the articles. You edit as if others are keeping their eyes closed. Already wasted my time on this. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I have explained my edits. The issue here is your POV pushing and constant reporting of editors that disagree with your edits, which you have yet to explain. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Boomerang

A WP:BOOMERANG is in order, due to repeated unactionable complaints filed here and in particular due to this diff Mhhossein brought himself - [8] that was blanket reverted by Mhhossein - beyond the sketchy source this is a blatant misrepresention of the source and a serious POV problem - transforming "Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict. - in the cited source into - As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 - turning a two sided casulty count (MEK-regime, regime-MEK) into a one sided one (MEK-regime) with highly POV language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous complaint here by blocked sock - [9] supported by Mhhossein. Another one by the blocked sock - [10] supported by Mhhossein (the sock got blocked for the nature of their comments prior to being discovered as a sock). Filing baseless ANI complaints every month or so against Stefka Bulgaria over a content dispite (in this case - without even engaging in the talk page of the article) - is not reasonable. @CaroleHenson: has been attempting to mediate in the content dispite(s) and might have input.Icewhiz (talk) 06:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional recent complaint against another user at ANI over content - [11].Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The very providing of this diff clealry demonstrates your bad faith approach towards me. In that ANI, the reported user was to be sanctioned but survived after he changed his behavior. Read ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC) and Icarosaurvus (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC). --Mhhossein ^talk 12:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Article issues could have been dwelt on the article's Talk page. Mhhossein has resorted to making unactionable complaints against editors that disagree with him much too often. His POV pushing and inability to work constructively with others that do not share his perspective is disruptive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose pending some evidence. @Icewhiz: Do you have any diffs or archive links of these "repeated unactionable complaints"? The two links above are to threads started by a different editor, and smearing the present OP by attempting to associate them with "a blocked sock" is clearly inappropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:05, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW, it's not the first time folks have attempted to link Mhh with the David Duke fan in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Note that #WP:IUC by Pahlevun is about the same dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that thread was opened neither by Mhhossein nor about Stefka Bulgaria, and from what I can establish (by looking at who edit-warred with whom, which is as far as I'm willing to delve into this content dispute) Pahlevun's "side" is ... not Stefka Bulgaria's, whatever either one is, so the existence of that thread doesn't back up Icewhiz's claim. And I should point out that while I was on Icewhiz's "side" during the EoL mess, that was purely because EoL was a DavidDuke-citing, antisemiticcanard-spouting Holocaust-denier; from what I can see, nothing about this mess that isn't ... that ... is black-and-white. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Just one note to show the guy is wrong. On the killings issue, this scholarly source clearly supports the quote in question. It reads: "...Mojahedin was an organization of questionable reputation responsible for “the deaths of morethan 10,000Iranians” since its exile. Or you can read here: "...and its leader even boasted about killing thousands of Iranians while this cult served ex-Iraqi dictator's expansionist ambition," here: "...the group returned the favor and killed by its own claim more than two thousand regime leaders," here: "..."Since 1981 the [MEK] have claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians they describe as agents of the regime," the report said." Also, this source suggests that this archive Washington Times article supports the figure in question. Where are those "repeated unactionable complaints" or those "baseless ANI complaints every month or so [filed] against Stefka Bulgaria" by me? --Mhhossein ^talk 12:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  Mhhossein restored this (which seems somewhat sketchy) as a source, and it does ineed read ""Total: Since 1979 over 10,000 people have died in the conflict." Nearly all sources, unless quoting the Iranian regime, refer to bi-sided conflict deaths - MEK's militia sustained quite a bit of casulties.Icewhiz (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Responding to Mhhossein's points above:

1. According to Piazza's article, the alleged "death of more than 10,000 Iranians" figure derived from an alleged U.S. Senate statement published on The Iran Times (Islamic Republic of Iran-controlled media has been proposed inadequate for fact-checking for political opposition groups on account of current censorship issues in Iran, including a misinformation campaign by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the MEK).

References

2. Mhhossein's second source is an Opinion Piece on USA today written by Hamid Babaei, who appears to have links the Islamic Republic of Iran (the article is reminiscent of the misinformation campaign noted above).
3. Mhhossein's third source is far from being RS.
4. Mhhossein's fourth source quotes a State Department report that does not mention a particular figure of how many died. Also considering that there have been thousands of deaths on both sides, resuming in the article that As a result, more than 10,000 people have been killed in MEK's violent attacks since 1979 is clearly POV pushing.
5. Here's a list of Mhhossein's unactionable complaints against different editors: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, here are a couple of previous reports against user Mhhossein for POV-pushing: [22], [23] Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh...sorry. Both are some years old cases. The first was opened by a sock and the second was nearly ending into a Boomerang for the user commencing the report. Claearly shows you're doing your best to find something against me.--Mhhossein ^talk 19:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Those are to show that Drmies had already warned you that your POV pushing was disruptive. Some of your unactionable complaints against different editors, however, are more recent. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria, said Drmies has a pretty good track record when it comes to POV warnings, but one wonders how that is relevant here. Now, in the section above you said you'd reply to the charges on the article talk page. I suggest you answer them here. You really don't want me and a bunch of other admins to turn off the Alabama game, make a pot of coffee, and wake up to investigate these charges and draw our conclusions without your input. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Stefka Bulgaria is not sad with the marginal discussions distracting the admin's eyes from the the diffs I provided. Thanks to the Icewhiz's defenses, Stefka's failure at replying to them is losing its importance. Anyway, I'd like to add one point in response to Stefka; His in vain 'censorship' accusations aside, Piazza's article makes use of an Iran Times article dealing with a U.S. Senate statement. The simple point is that The Iran Times, in contrast to what Stefka alleged, was ‬"founded‭ ‬in Washington‭ ‬D‭.‬C‭. ‬in‭ ‬1970‭, ‬in‭ ‬accordance‭ ‬with‭ ‬U‭.‬S‭. ‬federal‭ ‬and‭ ‬local regulations‭,‬" hence has nothing to do with the Iranian government. Had Stefka bothered to check the sources and contents of the articles before making edits, there would not be such a discussion. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The Iran Times is a fringe publication with a sole editor, does not qualiy as RS. I have responded to Dmries request above. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

At first it was unreliable since it had some relations with Iran and now that otherwise is proved, it's a fringe source! Maybe John Wiley & Sons and editors of 'Digest of Middle East Studies' need to get aware of it. Btw, your link does not say the mentioned guy is the sole editor of the source. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Javad Khakbaz, the sole owner and editor of the Iran Times". Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

He might be the sole owner but not certainly the sole editor. Anyway, it's a time wasting discussion. The John Wiley & Sons source refers to a Senate report. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP.--Mhhossein ^talk 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Iran Times is not RS, and no link/reference is provided to the alleged US report (all of which simply reflects on the author). Your John Wiley & Sons source has a number of other fascinating statements such as:

• "This resistance is depicted as the vanguard of a popular struggle against a traitorous clique that has betrayed both ideals of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the memories of those martyred in it." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin present themselves as a liberating Islamist alternative." (page 10)
• "The Mojahedin are, and continue to be, an ideological party committed to a radical, progressive interpretation of Islam tempered with familiar themes of liberation found in Shi’I doctrine."(page 11)
• "Specifically, the MEK look toward the creation, by armed popular struggle, of a society in which ethic, gender, or class discrimination would be obliterated."(page 11)

And many more.... Can you guess why I haven't included these in the article, despite it coming from a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't edit based on YOUR standards, including your own definition of Reliable Sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying then that these statements mentioned above would be ok to be included in the article just because the source is a John Wiley & Sons publication? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

151.82.153.227 has some connection to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29

I believe 151.82.153.227 has a relationship to 151.51.0.0/17 151.0.197.64/29. I think we should merge these two along with 151.82.153.227, and block them all together — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B045:A446:4059:8DE:E3BF:7527 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It took me a minute to figure this out. But, yes, it looks like 151.82.153.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is evading a previous block. I've blocked this new IP address. If more show up, I can maybe do a range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Date vandal

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

---

Anyone want to expedite the block of 47.136.32.60 (talk) over date vandalism across multiple articles? —Farix (t | c) 03:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 perhaps trivial issue

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

---

If a Wikipedia editor such as User:RexxS accuses another Wikipedia editor of being less intelligent than a orangutan, as they did at Module talk:WikidataIB#Wikilinks for redirects, I suggest that an admonition might be in order. (I found this rather amusing, other editors might not.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

He did use the phrase "an orangutan" correctly though. -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 21:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I quite said that. My comment was "I could train an orangutan to solve these sort of problems", which I believe is not a accusation about anybody's intelligence. Of course, I then went on to opine that "If an editor in the 100,000 Club can't do it easily, then I submit they need to take the cotton wool out of their ears and put it in their mouth.", which is a strong suggestion to listen, rather than talk. Nevertheless, orangutans are quite intelligent (even ones that are members of the 100,000 Club), and some may be upset at the comparison with certain editors. So, on the assumption that I have indeed offended some primate or another, I offer my unreserved apologies to them, and I'll do my level best to be more circumspect in future. --RexxS (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I believe RexxS has already got an army of orangutans adding stuff to WikiData. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish I was so fluent I could use the word "circumspect" correctly in conversation. Hell, I can't even say "circuitous" without thinking about it. Damn you RexxS--I could train a monkey to type fast and maybe even correctly, but even if you're just an ordinarily languaged human, I'm merely a trilobite. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I wish I had, John. They'd do a better job than the current bunch of automatons. --RexxS (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Abdu Hany

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

---

• Abdu Hany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ahmed Mekky (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abdu Hany is edit warring to add unsourced content in a BLP at Ahmed Mekky (actor) (1, 2, 3, 4). Can an uninvolved admin block him? He's already blocked on ar.wiki, and it looks like he's decided to be disruptive on en.wiki, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, I just noticed that the dates proposed for his birth date aren't even the same between edits. Some of them are 1978, and some are 1980. I think this might just be another date vandal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeffed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock requested for grammar warrior

Ponyo blocked the Los Angeles range Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:0:0:0:0/64 for three days ending earlier today, but the person has started up again with grammar warring of the exact same nature, changing "crew was" to "crew were".[24] The IP Special:Contributions/2605:E000:1301:4462:C049:D05D:2B1D:A481 has come out of the rangeblock to resume this kind of grammar warring. Parsecboy was also dealing with this person before the earlier block.

The person behind this IP range was offering unhelpful Teahouse contributions, for instance this rude invitation to self-destruct, and this incomprehensible complaint which required Cullen328 and Nick Moyes to perform further research. The number of Teahouse contributions from this range is large, and most of them are time wasters, not helpful.

A third area of disruption by this person has been in film plot sections, where he/she tangled with TheOldJacobite over The Last Samurai and The Departed, among others. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Additional context. GMG^talk 19:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just at this moment I don't see how the disruptive behaviour has resumed, they're just making grammar corrections, unless you're saying those corrections are wrong? Also, just noting that an IPv6 /64 is functionally equivalent to a single IPv4 address - all addresses within the /64 should be presumed to be the same user in the same way that discrete IPv4 addresses should be presumed to be the same user (at one time, they're dynamic, etc). I'm not even really sure why we *can* block individual IPv6 addresses - should just always block the /64. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The grammatical corrections are, in fact, correct. That is: unless any of the ships affected really did have a crew of just one person (plain impossible). Since crews are resolutely plural, then "the crew were rescued" is entirely correct and plural. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It is more of an English variation matter, since collective nouns are given a different grammatical number depending on the variation. For example, at least in British English, collective nouns (which "crew" can be) tend to be treated as plural ("...the crew were...") rather than singular, the latter being more common in other variations and especially in American English. Moreover, "crew" can refer to a single crew member, in which case singular forms are due irrespective of English variation; likewise with ships whose crew comprises one member, which may be the case in certain contexts however rare. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Nøkkenbuer, there is no universal correct way to refer to collective nouns of a singular form. There are two approaches: treat the collective as what it represents (called notional agreement), and treat the collective as a unit unto itself (called formal agreement). It also is NOT as simple as "British English does one, and American English does the other". There are situations within each dialect where one form is favored over the other, but there are some cases that BrEng treats notionally and AmEng treats formally, and vice-versa. The problem comes not from people, in good faith, changing one they think is wrong because they are only exposed to one variety of English, the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it. --Jayron32 23:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

English varieties does not come into it. With the exception of one article affected, all the ships are British registered and therefore British English is the language variety that should be used. The sole exception (French frigate Vénus (1780)) is about a French registered ship. However the edit to that article was not a grammatical correction but a minor CE)). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

From: Collins Dictionary of [British] English Usage. "A collective noun meaning 'a number of' can mean either 'some' or 'a large (or small) number', and is accordingly treated as plural." It does note an exception where the collective noun is qualified by what it is a number of. Thus 'the crew were rescued' is correct (because 'crew' means 'a [large] number of [sailors]'), but the cumbersome 'crew of sailors was rescued' would be similarly correct (because there is only one 'crew of sailors'). TheVicarsCat (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I already pre-agreed with you before you objected to my agreement with you. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. When I said " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." what I really meant was " the problem comes when people are informed of the fact that multiple varieties of English exist, and refuse to believe it." --Jayron32 11:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I think it's fair to say here that this rangeblock isn't going to be actioned at the moment - it now appears to be a content dispute of some sort (a grammar dispute - the best sort). Would it be possible to continue this discussion on the talk page of the articles in question, or more appropriately in this matter, some sort of dispute resolution page? Much appreciated y'all - TNT ^💖 09:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Continued reverts over the span of several months

Some months ago (early July), I was involved in an ANI thread due to my incorrect usage of AWB to update the use of "U.S." to "US" in usages of {{Episode table}}. After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. I understood the consequences of this, I was allowed to reapply for and was granted AWB rights for my account, and everything ended all well and smooth.

My question is that, while I understood and came to terms with the wrongdoing of my edits, it then acceptable for an editor (The Optimistic One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) to mass revert those edits over the span of several months via the revert function, spamming my notifications in the process? Here are screenshots of these reverts. This continues despite my requests to cease this by moving to editing the article rather than reverting, firstly at User talk:The Optimistic One#Reverts (at a later point, a seemingly passive-aggressive comment was added in another language; the text in the diff apparently translates to "Oh, and thank you for the heads up."), then User talk:The Optimistic One#September 2018 today when I received a further nine revert notifications, after the first thread (indicating that the editor is doing this deliberately to spite me).

The biggest issue with this so far is that these edits are becoming disruptive in the fact that the editor is blinding reverting edits that are just by me without checking that it's the right edit, and thus reverting the incorrect edit. As a "punishment" for my edits, which I already received through the removal of the AWB right to my account, do I now have to deal with this for however many more months? Is my "punishment" for the linked thread to wake up in the morning at the end of next year to another dozen reverts? -- Alex^TW 05:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, most of those reverts happened around the time Alex made the edits, I told Alex; Those edits had to be reverted, I have a job to do just like every other Wikipedian, and part of that job is reverting disruptive edits. That revert was a fluke, I don't how it turned out like that. By the time Alex had messaged me, I was reverting his disruptive edits. Every recent revert I made was because I stumbled across Alex's edits of a particular season, I would then revert all the edits made to the rest of the seasons. Why should I waste time scrolling through sections of articles when I can just revert his edits? If he's going to get worked up about it then why doesn't he self-revert his own edits. It's been nearly three months, they're up there long enough and all should be removed. I'm going to stop reverting them from now on due to the backlash. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As can be seen from the screenshots, most of them are actually recent, so they're not around the time the edits were made. That revert wasn't a "fluke", it was you not checking what you were reverting and just doing it blindly. To paraphrase you: Why should you waste time scrolling through histories of articles when you can just edit a single section? As for the reverting, they didn't have to be reverted, see my initial paragraph - After this thread, the general consensus was that editors should determine the usage of "U.S." or "US" on each article separately, and implement it thus. It was up to the editors of each of the separate articles to determine it, it wasn't a "had to" revert, nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that.

If you're going to stop reverting them, then this thread could be closed, but I'm still curious, just as a single editor, as to whether it's acceptable. -- Alex^TW 05:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverting your edits was the quickest way of getting the job done. I would have scrolled through sections and histories if I couldn't revert your edits. I told you, if your going to get worked up about it then why don't you self-revert your own edits. Those edits were disruptive. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you not read? I already said nor was it a case where I had to self-revert - I actually opened up a second thread and I was strongly recommended against doing that. -- Alex^TW 06:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I did. Can you send me a link to the thread? The Optimistic One (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: In the followup thread, I urged Alex to do a second AWB run to mass revert his mass changes. Two others also urged him to self-revert his changes in some capacity, and one more mused about "how best to correct a disruptive automated mass edit", which I guess we can throw in that camp too (though it's questionable whether they understood the situation based on the comparison they made). However, four editors also took the position that the changes were essentially no big deal and that they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. So, that's an even split, and there was no formal reading of consensus anyways. I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that "Those edits had to be reverted" or "Those edits were disruptive", but that sentiment never manifested as a consensus. The only issue was that it was an an improper AWB run. The WP:AWBRULES violation was borderline, and much of the backlash he received stemmed from his attitude, not from the changes themselves. I don't think it's any better to mass revert these minor changes without a consensus than it was to make them in the first place. You're not being any better than Alex in terms of making mass changes without a consensus. This could have been sorted out months ago via an RfC. Somebody could have just stuck an RfC template on the original Wikiproject discussion! Instead, you're being unilateral and belligerent, which was supposedly the problem to begin with! (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: I think that there should be another AWB. People will get confused when on one article it reads US and on the other it reads U.S. I didn't pay attention to that thread at the time, so I didn't hear about this "split". They also said they can be manually changed back, as-needed, on an individual basis. That pretty much says that if anyone stumbles across an edit, they can change it back. And I'm also not being "unilateral and belligerent". The Optimistic One (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that any reader cares about the periods. I suggest you find something more useful to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, what he said. This was an incident from July, it's high time you move on. (Swarm ♠ talk) 06:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Joe DiRosa

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

---

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

For more context, look at this COIN discussion. The article about him (Joe DiRosa) appears to have been made by single-purpose accounts, possibly sockpuppets or users affiliated with him. Either this person is a shill or this is an extreme WP:CIR issue.

Basically, he began by creating a promotional article about a company named Onox, Inc. I tagged it for speedy deletion, and afterwards he made an equivalent draft, which an AFC reviewer rejected for the same reasons. I then noticed he edited the article about himself (and added a picture). The article is now under AfD. This is a very complicated situation and I'm not sure what to do about it. funplussmart (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor seems to be a very strong example of WP:NOTHERE. First, he only creates promotional articles on himself or people he knows, all of which appear to be non-notable subjects: (Joe DiRosa, New York Artist Series, Draft:Onox, Inc.) and so on. Second, he has the balls to come to his own AfD and argue vociferously that he's notable, wasting everyone's time. He's at COIN for the above articles and actions. His whole approach is to use Wikipedia as a promotional noticeboard. I see no editing towards the good of the greater project.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I was dumb enough to create an account with my own name. I created one page on a company called Onox, Inc. and went in and cleaned up the structure of 2 pages related to me. No information really added and no citations added. Now I have been consistently attacked , added to virtually every board they can think of and they are even chasing down pages which I havent published yet.. It is consistent harassment because I didnt hide real name with my screen name. They have participated in biased editing, picked apart every edit I've made and seem to think it woul dbe a game to target me. Many of these editors have created pages which are less recognizable then mine and they seem to continually kill citations and make comments without properly reading the articles. This and this isn't and its all just harassment. I've replied nicely, i've offered alternate citations in virtually all situations, and i havent tried to publish a page except the first one. They continue to harass even though I could have just published these pages myself if I wanted to.. no need to make a draft page since I have the required number of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirosa (talk • contribs) 23:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

oh and those articles you seem to think that are so promotional have been there for nearly 10 years and had many editors come through and not put them up for deletion. Its strange that no other editors over the years seemed to deem them a problem and even made edits to them. Not till i created a editing account under my own name and created the page Onox, Inc. did this all become an issue. Joedirosa (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, this user has now been blocked for socking. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Genre warring 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.

---

190.234.55.196 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing genres again, without consensus, with or without reliable sources after final warning. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both the IP and you were being mildly disruptive by edit-warring with each other. However, the issue was 12 hours ago and hopefully that's the end of it. If it starts up again, WP:AN3 is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I see nothing blockworthy here. I’ve left them a note explaining how sourcing works. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I've seen you repeatedly let vandals have their way by downplaying legitimate vandal reports such as this one. What's the deal? You're out of step with decisive admins such as Swarm, Materialscientist, Widr, etc. Your laissez-faire attitude is very frustrating for veteran users who are down in the trenches working to maintain the integrity of the wiki, the people who have the best view of the pattern of disruption. Your comment about the Peru IP "being mildly disruptive" takes the cake. IP 190.234.55.196 is a dangerous falsifier with edits such as this one changing album ratings upward to falsely give the album a better score. His genre-warring extends to Spanish-language Wikipedia. But, hey, let's give the guy a free pass. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

That's probably because none of those admins (AFAIK) have improved over 100 articles to GA status, so they don't know what it's like to do lots of work on an article to know what's important and what isn't. This is just a silly edit war over trivial stuff in the infobox which is not as important as the main prose and sourcing in the article. Don't you remember what I did to Hammond organ to get it up to GA status, for example? Anyway, it's not vandalism. And if Swarm, Widr and Materialscientist ever want me to do a GA review for them, I will. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You've been right many times but you're wrong about this not being vandalism. It's absolutely vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you Binksternet this is the exact reason I'm no longer going to report this type of disruption. Both Ritchie333 and TonyBallioni have been denying reports at AIV, so I started reporting them here, now they come here and deny them here also. I fell if they are not willing to handle disruption reports like these they should not act on these and let other admins who are more in touch with the SOP of genre warring. Maybe I can make reports at Swarm if they wouldn't mind. Maybe we can create Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against disruptive editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Tony has covered adequately why the original report didn't warrant a block. When I look at disruption that is not blatant vandalism, copyvios, BLPs, I look at both sides and treat the parties as equally and fairly as I can. If you're upset because we didn't punish a user in the way you wanted them to, too bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have made that block too: I was about to, and Swarm beat me too it. The difference there was that you had a long term SPA (3 weeks) who had been ignoring communication for just as long and editing against consensus. Here it looked like you had an IP that was swapping unsourced information for other unsourced information. An explanation beyond an essay that doesn’t have community consensus would have been helpful. Binksternet’s explanation was great: it’s stale, or I’d block. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I know some Wikipedians think it's a very serious issue whether Led Zeppelin (album) is considered "hard rock", "blues rock" and / or "heavy metal" in the infobox, but I am pretty confident that most people in the real world couldn't give a flying monkeys one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue here is that patently adding false information like that to articles absolutely is vandalism, but genre warring isn’t (and I do not consider it a reason to block on its own without other clear disruption like edit warring or editing against consensus.) The issue here is for me and a few other admins I’ve talked to about the AIV backlog complaints (cc: K6ka as I know he has thoughts on this) established users reverting minor infobox changes of new users looks exactly like the type of content dispute that we aren’t supposed to get involved in. If someone is falsifying record sales performances and the like I care a lot. If someone is arguing that Album X is grunge metal and it’s called that in Rolling Stone but one of the page watchers thinks it’s heavy metal, yeah, I don’t think policy allows me to intervene there. We need diffs and policy based reasons to block and I typically prefer to see that new users have had citations explained to them rather than templated about changing genres. If someone continues to edit against consensus after this, then I’m fine blocking, but a random “this IP is genre warring.” with nothing else isn’t helpful. Now that it’s clear the user has been adding false information, I don’t object to a block if it starts up again, and I’ll watchlist their talk so I can deal with it quickly in the future (and anyone is free to report it on my talk.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In the case of blatantly falsifying information, the stock Twinkle templates aren't really of much use. They're too generic, confrontational, and cannot explain the specific instance. I find it much better to revert, and if necessary leave a message like, "Why did you change 'x' rating from 2.5 to 3.5? The source [link] clearly says 2.5". Then you can follow it up, saying, "I'm sorry, but I got no answer, so I'm going to have to block you until I get an explanation". A better result all round, in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Since you two (TonyBallioni and Ritchie333) don't consider genre warring to be a problem, can you step away from responding to AIV and ANI reports about genre warring? Many other editors and admins think this is a significant problem. Let us do our work, those of us who labor against the incessant waves of genre warriors. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, as with "pro" wrestling, we could just drop all coverage of genres as not worth the drama. EEng 22:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Provide diffs that justify blocks under the blocking policy, like you did above, and I will block. The issue here is that admins are not supposed to use their tools to pick winners in content disputes. A bunch of final warning templates to new users without ever explaining to them how to suggest a change to an article is not the way to go about this. In any other area of the encyclopedia, we wouldn’t be blocking here without even attempting to discuss with someone. Music pages shouldn’t be an exception. If there is actually community consensus to upgrade genre warring to an info page or guideline, then I think an RfC could be useful to clarify the community as a whole’s view, but right now, most genre warring reports I see are asking me to ignore the blocking policy because of a wikiproject essay, which I’m not willing to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Then please stop handling those request. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think there is community consensus that supports blocking new users for changing grunge metal to grunge rock without actually talking to them. As both Ritchie and I have said above, we’d both block if it was clear that the users actually knew what was going on so that they could engage on article talk pages, but the templated message for genre warring makes no sense and doesn’t make any attempt to explain to new users how to go about editing. I already have said that I agree with Swarm’s block above: that was a long-term pattern by an SPA. The reports I usually see though are of editors who are interested in music and have been templated and reverted with no actual discussion. That’s a content dispute with templates. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm with EEng on this one; an RfC to expunge the concept of music genres from infoboxes for ever and ever would get my vote. (Or !vote). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I would also vote "yes" to remove genres from all musician, album and song infoboxes. Proposals along these lines have been raised in the past, but they never have enough backing to stick. In November 2007, the genre parameter was removed from Infobox musical artist but it was restored the next hour. In October 2008, the genre parameter was removed from two infoboxes, but two days later an extensive discussion was raised to restore it, and the genre was restored ten days later. In the meantime, we must deal with the presence of the genre parameter, which unfortunately acts like a honeypot for all the angry, fanatic, lazy or obsessive people who want to edit Wikipedia but don't want to mess with prose or sourcing. It's this assortment of less skillful editors that are the most frustrating because of their uncommunicative behavior or because of their incorrigible persistence. Binksternet (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, I would also support removing the genre parameter from all music related infoboxes, but we would still have genre warring but now it would be in prose. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Require a citation from a reliable source supporting the genre listed. The "genre" parameter is useful when I'm looking up a band or performer I don't personally know, but I recognize that genre warring has been a problem, so making a citation mandatory would help. No citation, not a reliable source, no genre listed. If anyone starts an RfC I'd appreciate knowing about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea, really. To be honest, more generally in infoboxes I'd like to see stricter requirements for having sources, ideally an inline reference for every fact in the infobox: I'd rather read an infobox for a quick fact than read the paragraph of the article, but if there's no citation there, then I have to read the article (which a lot of the time doesn't support, or in some cases contradicts, the infobox). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}｜✝️｜they/their｜😹｜T/C｜☮️｜John 15:12｜🍂 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 editor at Teahouse

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

---

• Vincent Setiawan Gout has been making repeated disruptive edits at WP:TH (under this user name & 182.253.162.192) and apparently evading current block at 118.136.145.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --David Biddulph (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: I think you mean Vincent Setiawan Gouta. He hasn't edited using Vincent Setiawan Gout for days. See also Vincent Setiawan G. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't twigged that the name had changed, and it was the Gout version which came to my attention and had obvious connections with the blocked IP, thanks for the correction. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on the username overlap and continued vandalism at Kapas railway station I think we have to add User talk:Vincentonetrillion to the list. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:RBI applies to our friend here. I have blocked all of the remaining accounts and commented at the SPI. Alex Shih (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This user is User:Vincent9000. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, 331dot. I have linked to the SPI above. This is not so much socking as opposed to just quacking. Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

This bot has brought changes to a edit on the page "Holy Trinity School, Allahabad".The changes on this page were authorised by the head of the office of this institution and were not vandalism according to the bot policy.I want the team at Wikipedia and their bot to revert the changes it has caused as you are halting our work which is important. Kindly revert the changes the changes and for further details contact us on our Gmail page <removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A21C:E8E1:25DA:5F7:7467:B28B (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

ClueBot is functioning perfectly. You added unencyclopaedic garbage to the page, it reverted it. That's what it's supposed to do. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly right. The edit in question is here. SQL^{Query me!} 16:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

yhw?💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Flaring tempers over Chinese history

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

---

• Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opasney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These two (relative) newcomers, are at each others throats in "Transition from Ming to Qing" and "Heqin". I have tried to get them to talk, but to no avail. Massive WP:IDHT, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSION issues on both sides. Conflict now ensuing on my TP. At wits end. Send cavalry. Kleuske (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:AN/3RR is the proper venue for this. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 17:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right... I'll report there. Kleuske (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

EulerObama

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

---

Guys please urgent action required to prevent further damage. Vandalism on article ESME-Sudria. Has been blocked twice already the last three weeks for vandalism and negative behavior, specially on article Institut Sup'Biotech de Paris (Eastmain (talk · contribs) stopped him). Now he is shouting and threatening people. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read [25]--EulerObama (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• That is not a WP article but rather a pure BOOSTER hijacked page. The IP is correct to call the community's attention to it. I am in too nasty a mood to address it now, but somebody should. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog can you fix that [26] edit war--EulerObama (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is fixed already : vandalism on the article. Your behavior is a big big issue for Wikipedia, I hope this will stop soon. 80.12.27.215 (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

IP, it will likely end up in a block for you. Jytdog, I am sure your comment was meant ironically. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like the IP is the one restoring the promo, I have reverted it, but this IP really needs to stop edit warring. This edit[27] by EulerObama was much too rant like, but it looks like the IP is the problem one here, this IP is at best aggressively misrepresenting a content dispute as vandalism, and appears to be insistant on restoring PROMO. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 spreading questionable information about dormant professional basketball players

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

This IP is adding unsourced info about the status of professional basketball players. The editor behind this IP is editing pages, mainly of basketball players in their 30s and presently without a team, under the assumption that they are all retired. Examples include Jason Terry, Rashad McCants, Larry Sanders (basketball), Samuel Dalembert, etc. (S)he edits that they are retired, despite a lack of official announcement saying such, and also having no reliable source. This has been a long-term occurrence, and the IP made an edit after being given a final warning not to do so. Also, here would be a typical edit from this IP. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)..

This is a noob, the IP address is a static IP from the Philippines. I wouldn't call leaving him a third and final warning as a great way to start up communication with him. Just a suggestion try writing him a friendly note offering to help him figure out the problem is? If there is edit warring, take him to ANEW. Outside of that, this is a content dispute. Did you notice that his contributions consist of just simple phrases? It's quite possible that there is a language barrier. Basically, the only actionable thing in your report is BITE, and that doesn't point to the IP. John from Idegon (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Fair point. Thank you for your input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Rather than assuming bad faith here, I think it may be a good-faith difference in terminology. Many players never officially hold a press conference or have a press release and declare themselves retired; they just sort of can't find teams to hire them and quit playing. There's no magic threshold where a player goes from "could still play and is maybe still looking for a team" and "too old and probably not actively trying to play sports anymore". To take the reductio ad absurdum argument: What if those players aren't on a team for 5 years? 10 years? 40 years? If they never announce anything, when do we call them retired? I see nothing really disruptive with what they are doing. If there is a disagreement over what is already a very fuzzy definition. If we have a Wikipedia-specific consensus as to what that threshold is, link to it. If not, then you can't tell him he's wrong. Instead, start a discussion somewhere to establish a consensus on how to proceed before telling someone they are wrong, when you have no evidence they are. --Jayron32 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I see your point. Come to think of it, some of the folks have not been on a team since 2015 or 2016 (or only played four games in the last four years). I'll keep your input in mind for the future. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don’t know about the NBA, but in Major League Baseball “retired” is a legal status with a very specific meaning. A player’s contract is rendered null and void and his pay stopped upon official retirement; if he’s still owed money on that contract he likely won’t officially retire, and especially not if he stopped playing due to a work-related injury (e.g. Prince Fielder). He may not be playing, but his legal status is absolutely not “retired”. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The general (unwritten) practice at WP:NBA seems to be a "few" years of inactivity to call them "former players", and a verifiable source to list them as "retired". I'd personally say at least 2 years (if not 3) before calling them "former", but agree that a WikiProject would be the best venue to discuss. As the warnings I see on their talk page were for "retired" edits, I'd say the unsourced warnings are reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruption in User Talk Page

Anonymous IPs are persistently editing and editwarring on my User Talk page. Admin action against them is very much needed, as they have been reverted multiple times, yet their disruption persists. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 04:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, I have semi-protected your talk page for three days. I will extend the protection of the disruption continues. Just let me know. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

All of the Telekom Srbija IPs spamming this page going back to 23 August are obviously the same person, and I think I know which LTA it is. Semiprotection should fix this for now, but I've also watchlisted the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring in Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He decided to remove from the article correct quotations from sources where the term "SA-11" was mentioned, replacing it with a more general term "Buk".

"SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. Further:

1. Change in the consensus version: [28] - the revert to consensus: [29]

2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [30] and the righteous revert: [31]

3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [32] and the righteous revert: [33]

4. Further, new participants join the war of edits. Andrewgprout have made the fourth entering of non-consensus changes: [34].

5. FlightTime have made the same: [35].

I tried to discuss this with John on his talk page, but he advised to "shut up" and close discussion: [36]. On the article talk page they just scoff: [37]. I'm completely at a loss and do not know what to do now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, I reverted the article to a stable version before this all started and posted a request for page protection and that's all I've done. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Tell me please. You see the history of revisions. Why do you think, that only the version of 22:19, 18 September 2018‎ is a stable version? Why not the version of 18:36, 18 September 2018‎, which were stable from 2014?--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus: It's the first version before the edit warring started. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Nope. This is a new version, which was pushed by the edit warring. All diffs are here.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what you're seeing, but I'm not going to argue with you. This is the version I reverted to. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:16, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It's strange for me, why the opposite side failed to see the start of the BRD cycle. Not one user, but two, three, four...--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Stable in 2014 is not stable in 2018. --Tarage (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The changes were made 22:19, 18 September 2018 and first time reverted 22:54, 18 September 2018. When the new version became "stable"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

We told you above. It was the version before the edit warring started. --Tarage (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

No, personally you talk me about "stable version". When it became stable?--Nicoljaus (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When the edit war started. --Tarage (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

How interesting. You mean, the article has no stable version until the edit war?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've left an only warning for personal attacks on Nicoljaus's Talk page. I was tempted to block, and if another administrator feels a block is warranted without the warning, that's fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is another interesting edit from the OP. --John (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    I would not be surprised if that IP is the same as 37.151.19.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and the contributions of the latter are not really constructive. I just ignore them, but some users choose to reply.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    And what's interesting there? IP-user tried to think up a story, and I said that his story seems like nonsense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    What's interesting to me is that you described a living person as a "Drug&whore dealer". WP:BLP applies on talk pages and you need to be mindful of this going forward. --John (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    It's funny. But in fact I wrote that the story in which a person is represented as a "Drug&whore dealer" is a complete nonsense.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    Your entire message was Drug&whore dealer try to generate attention of authorities to his business? It does not make sense, as for me. It's not obvious to me that this meant what you say it meant. Is the problem your command of English? --John (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    May be. But, may be here is the same reason, why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    So you are justifying your dubious comment about a BLP by the fact that the consensus has gone against you at a different article? Again, it's really hard to figure out what you are saying. Are you still accusing me of recruiting meatpuppets to that discussion? That's a very serious allegation and it needs to be backed up with evidence or withdrawn, with or without an apology. --John (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    No, you are drawing the wrong conclusions to me. However, I do not want to continue to talk with you, as you have already told me to "shut up" on your talk page. However, if you will explain, why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle, I will be happy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I request a block of Nicoljaus on grounds of competency and aspersions. Whether the user's infelicity with the English language is real or assumed, it makes it very difficult to communicate with them. And the editor has accused me of meatpuppetry, but in spite of being given many opportunities, refuses to withdraw the allegation or present evidence to support it. --John (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, this request was made to divert attention from his own behavior (edit warring). In spite of being given many opportunities John ignored the question "why so many experienced users failed to find the start of BRD cycle".--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, is hardly helping himself by making aspersions. BUT he is quite correct, the stable version (stable since at least 2016) is the one that he reverted to (as did I), not the one that John and some others favour. Discussion continues on talk and no clear consensus has yet been established for the new version, or some modification. Nicoljaus and I were I believe quite correct to revert to the stable version until that discussion is resolved. The edit warring is being done by those who favour the new version and either don't know, or don't care what the stable version was. Perhaps their changes are correct, but they have to win the argument on talk first. Pincrete (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on the edit war, but Nicoljaus' question regarding BRD is, frankly, nonsensical. I don't know if that's difficulty with English, or just trying to needle John. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little tired of people who talk about my abilities in English and at the same time are not able to understand who started BRR instead of BRD.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Could you kindly tell us who was/were the meatpuppet/s you accused John of recruiting? Or else withdraw that accusation? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not want to accuse anyone. I want the disagreements to be resolved by a calm discussion, not by edit warring.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are "a little tired", don't waste your energy making completely unfounded half-baked troll-like accusations about fellow editors. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't stop doing things I haven't done before.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

So what did you mean by “And then there was the help of a friend” here? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant the situation when experienced users critically failed to find the start of BRD cycle. Their actions do not look like the actions of experienced users, but as actions of meatpuppets. But they, of course, can not be meatpuppets, and you know this perfectly, they are not freshly registered users. But the problem with such strange behavior remains.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Issues with New Page Creation

EspinosaLuisJr1791 (talk · contribs)

EspinosaLuisJr1791 has been creating numerous college sports related articles. The topics themselves mostly likely to be notable. However there are large problems with everyone I have examined, mostly while doing new page patrol. Example pages: 2018–19 Southern Conference men's basketball season 2018–19 Summit League men's basketball season 2018–19 Savannah State Lady Tigers basketball team. These pages are more like templates needing further content and have 1 or no sources to back-up the limited information which is present. The response by editors has been to move to draft or place improvement tags as can be seen by the numerous such talk page messages. The user will also create duplicates of his own content ex: J.J. Taylor A B & 2018-19 MAAC A B.

The user has also received personalized, non-templated, messages raising the issues 1 2 3. These were unsuccessful and this user has never engaged in a talk discussion anywhere on the project. The most recent problem, creating a second version of J.J. Taylor linked above, came after the third personalized message. I would suggest that this user's new page creation is not enhancing the encyclopedia and is causing work for others to try and fix, nor is his lack of responsiveness when issues are brought to his attention showing any sign that improvement is on the way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This needs some sort of administrative action to stop this, otherwise it seems some editors will need to dedicate a significant amount of time to cleaning up Espinosa’s messes. I’d support some sort of article creation sanctions due to their failure to communicate and abide by community policy. Vermont (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Noncommunicative IP making disruptive edits

IP-hopping via proxy/vpn, currently at 1.180.203.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), previous few days at 36.102.223.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 36.102.223.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Has reverted several articles to long out-of-date versions: Special:Diff/756761974/861127590, Special:Diff/750974657/860356081, Special:Diff/765288717/860358893. Completely noncommunicative, although I've left several messages on various talk pages and edit summaries, they have continued despite warnings. They're also making a large number of strange edits to layouts of tables etc. (eg. Prime Minister of Azerbaijan) as well as to various templates mostly to do with color values. It appears that they're interested in tweaking graphic design elements, and the reversions may be more about that than content disputes, but it's difficult to understand what they're trying to accomplish... seems to be a case of WP:CIR. --IamNotU (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive IP at Talk:Eugenics

82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Posted a personal attack at Talk:Eugenics impugning another editor on the page. This comment was removed first by MPants at work and then by myself after the IP re-added it with an edit summary which was also another personal attack in my reversion I added the edit summary WP:NPA - subsequent to that the IP has been deleting pretty much any comment added to the page and when challenged replied, "because WP:NPA. I'm not sure what to do with this. It's not exactly vandalism, and it's not edit warring, yet, but it's definitely pure disruption. So I'm putting it here for now. Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reported at WP:AIV so hopefully that will get a quick response. Note that more admins watching this talk page would be a wonderful thing, as there's some really obvious POV pushing going on by avowed white supremacists and by editors who seem to run afoul of WP:CIR. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I absolutely concur that this page should be on Admin patrol routes. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Persistent WP:STALKING by IP editor over various topics in this year

An anonymous editor has been following and reverting my edits over a range of different topics for over a year. Initially, I mostly ignored these disruption and only used the 3RR noticeboard and requested page protection when I had to. However, this IP editor have started to revert almost every edit I made, and it is making it impossible for me to make any contribution here.

The following list is a partial record of his stalking behavior:

Mountaineering

• Shishapangma: [38], [39], [40] (February 2018); [41], [42], [43], [44] (June 2018); [45] (Just Now)
• Wang Fuzhou: [46], [47] (Just Now)
• Gongbu (mountaineer): [48], [49] (Just Now)
• Liu Lianman: [50], [51] (Just Now)
• Three Steps: [52], [53] (Just Now)

History and Culture of Tibet

• Polyandry in Tibet: [54] (August 2018)
• 13th Dalai Lama: [55], [56], [57] (August – September 2018)

Geography of China

• Pangong Tso: [58], [59] (December 2017)
• Qonggyai County: [60], [61] (January 2018)
• Damxung County: [62], [63] (Just Now)

Railway transport

• Nepal Railways: [64], [65] (Just Now)
• Qinghai–Tibet railway: [66], [67] (Just Now)

Finally, this one happened right after my last edit on Dragon Boat Festival: [68]

This is by no means an exhaustive list, especially for earlier edits. But the number of such edits is sufficient to demonstrate the severity as I have only around 170 main namespace edits this year. In addition, I could only find those attacks that are directed at me, while the majority of said IP editor's disruption is POV edits on politically sensitive topics, for example [69], [70], [71], [72].

I strongly suspect either User:O1lI0 (now permanently blocked) or User:tr56tr, or both of them, are related to this IP editor, for various reasons: First, both of them was previously engaged in edit wars or ethnic/racial attacks, and was banned after my report. They also had similar topics of interest with the IP stalker. Finally, both of them are Taiwanese, have Taiwanese origins, or have a special interest in Taiwan ([73]), while the IP addresses point to Taipei, Taiwan.

• O1lI0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• tr56tr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would like to request that the IP editor be blocked before the stalking evolves to something more serious. I'd like to know if the IP ranges used by this IP editor (mainly 101.8.0.0/13, 49.212.0.0/13) could be blocked, and if not, what measures could be taken. Thanks! Esiymbro (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Those ranges are much too large to block, but I'll see if I can figure something out. Whether or not they're targeting your edits specifically (and it does seem like they are) they're editing disruptively. Give me a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't able to do any better than those ranges. There are a number of reports of open proxies on 49.212.0.0/14 and some of these may also be, but it's not obvious to me. I've blocked a number of the individual IPs that have been engaged in this campaign since yesterday, but that's the best I can do at the moment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Really appreciate it. I understand the difficulty but thanks anyway. Esiymbro (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I did a few range blocks. There wasn't much collateral damage. That should slow him down, but it won't stop him. For the record, it was: 49.215.224.0/20, 49.214.128.0/17, 117.19.0.0/17, 101.15.128.0/20, and 101.13.0.0/17. I'm going to have to write this down someplace because I'm sure this will become a recurring problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, there's a whole nest of them at {{Samuel P. Huntington}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The CU vandals are back again

Somebody please block Stundo5754 and Magnet925a indefinitely and delete their userpages as well. They keep closing SPIs inappropriately and claiming to be check users, as well as impersonating admins, and keep doing so from countless sock accounts; likely an LTA.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Just take a look at the history of these pages. It may be worth protecting the pages as well, to prevent future socks.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

One blocked by me, another one by Zzuuzz--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I'm sure they'll be back for more soon, though. Ymblanter, I noticed you protected Qmbv's SPI page for a few days, do you think it would be worth protecting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigwheel1221 as well? It seems like that's actually the one getting the most sockpuppetry/disruptive editing. Of course, I'm not sure how effective it would be, considering the socks could just move on to another SPI page...--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 20:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I protected other pages as well but you are right that the protection is unlikely to stop this activity.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion to take this elsewhere and reldev this section? This seems like an easy thing for vandals to do and we don't want more folks getting ideas. --Tarage (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Meh. The ones that know, know already. I dropped a few more CU blocks, by the way. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Editor missusing his power

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

---

• I want to report User:GSS cause he is miss-using his power and declining wikipedia draft without any research. I want to ask some question here that how he can decline draft submission within few minutes after creating a draft cause draft takes too much time to get review. I think he have some personal issue with Draft:Prakash Neupane. I want to describe all things here : His song Timro Najik is charted here: [74], his song has won national music award which is shown here [75][76] and he has artist page too. He has been featured in National Television[77] , Radio Kantipur [78] and News papers. And it shows that he has released 3 Albums in National newspaper Nagarik (daily).[79] than how has not fullfill the criteria?

Additional Info: He has been featured in Kathmandu Tribune[80] Nepal Television, Kantipur FM, ABC Television (Nepal) which is reliable source and other major National newspapers which are in wikipedia. So, without doing research how can you decline wiki draft? You're not even a Nepali editor? and He has fullfilled wikipedia Notability for WP:MUSICBIO[81] criteria no 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• He don't have any answer regarding my contribution and missusing his wikipedia power. So, he is pretending he is innocent and pointing towards SOCK investigations. I know he and his friends will play politics but i'm not a sock here. I created article asking deleting admin and within few minutes he just declined the article without doing any review. I have described all the things above. So, i request admin to suspend this user and remove his power. And the main things is he is not even Nepali editor and he don't aggrees Nepali National medias and governmental medias news coverage. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• please could you answer User:GSS why you declined the article when it has fulfilled WP:MUSICBIO criteria no 1, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12. I have discussed about yours Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaurav456 but you declined article before i left message into your talk page. So, I want to ask to all the admins here Who will give me justice and punish him? In WP:MUSICBIO Criteria for musicians and ensembles there is written that Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria but i've fulfilled 6 criteria and he rejected me without doing any research. 27.34.68.202 (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• OP blocked as a sock. See the SPI. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Brassmonger

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

---

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

Brassmonger has been disruptive in a number of ways since he joined. He's had numerous warnings, which he's deleted or paid no mind to. I don't know if it's a CIR issue, or if he's trolling. Most recently he's taken to:

• [82] [83] [84] Messing with other editors' drafts in a nonconstructive way
• [85] moving pages to draftspace
• [86] PRODed Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country for "Insidious Sexual Content"
• as well as general nonconstructive edits that must be reverted by other editors. Half of his edits are deleted, so I don't know what other nonsense he's caused.

Please either get him to understand what is expected of wikipedia editors or prevent him from causing any more disruption. (Pinging Chrissymad who's tried to help him on -help.) Natureium (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll add to that, his ridiculous and retaliatory "NPA" warnings in response to valid warnings from Drewmutt and myself. I'll also note it's mostly nonsense in the warning as well. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 20:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. 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:Wumbolo

The following discussion is closed. 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 kindly asked Wumbolo to take a break from nominating articles to AfD, earlier today, but it's just ridicules now that he continues to nominate articles without consulting talk pages or projects. I don't think he is doing correct research, WP:BEFORE etc. First example I will give is Xterm AfD and now AFree86. Both have gone to snow keep. There are other examples today and yesterday in the log of nominating multiple articles regarding older software and OS systems/ programs. This to me just seems an attack on these old articles without due and not to mention adding AfDs to an already expanding log pile. Would like some admins to review the situation please. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. First, it was I who snow-closed Xterm. But, let's take a closer look at the other one. Looking over the references in XFree86, it's really a pretty poor collection of sources. Lots of references, but blogs, interviews, mailing list posts, source code repositories, etc. I can't find a single WP:RS in the lot. The fact that this is heading to another snow keep just says that people aren't paying attention to our sourcing requirements. Or, maybe they're all just doing the WP:IAR thing. In either case, I really can't blame anybody for bringing this to AfD. And, yes, I've used both Xterm and Xfree86. And I know how important they are. But, we're looking for sources, and I'm not seeing them. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't really use Linux anymore, I've kinda migrated to apple macs and Windows 7, X, long ago, but there were a number of books published for Xfree86, Emil Georgescu published a few, there are published notes which can be classed as a cite in notes on the article. But these are old topics, I hate to say it, but this is kind of an archive of old stuff on wikipedia and to just get rid of these articles without correct due diligence doesn't seem right. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion of cURL is similar; those of semi-DABs of equipment and journal are not similar but may outrage inclusionists. There are also a good number of AfDs that look like they will be non-controversial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

To be fair Wumbulo has only made about one AfD since asked to stop. Importantly however we have a problem not just related to AfD's but also to PRODs (and perhaps a redirect and a speedy) dating from about 12 September 2018 10:25 (and some You tube articles before that), starting with this redirect, though may have been issues before that. The PRODs and redirects are perhaps more serious as they may slip scrutiny if not properly on Wikiproject. Following the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Proposed deletion of Xterm notification and deprod I've done a lot of deprods from Wumbulo's activity with a low threshold, not ideal practice but somewhat swamped, mainly because a number are at least possible merge candidates. Very concerned about Wumbolo's views at User_talk:Wumbolo#AfDs with regard to AfDs etc. This is disruptive because its all focused on destruction and defence rather than trying to improve, not good for genuine volunteers.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage Wumbolo to enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: if you want to see my PROD log, or more specifically my PRODs that didn't go through, use User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py (perhaps change it a bit). I don't want to have a Twinkle PROD log so that people can look at blue links that are article re-creations in the future, after new sources will have been published. wumbolo ^^^ 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If you expect a lot of your PRODs to stay blue (or turn blue again), you may want to reconsider your current PRODding. The log is not just a tool for transparancy, it's also useful to keep track of and evaluate your own actions. Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't blame him, to be honest. PROD is a waste of time, you can PROD the most obvious piece of crap article in the history of crap articles, and someone will tootle along and remove it again. PROD is pointless. Just AFD them. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I would have said PROD is actually usually working quite well when combined when monitored at project level such as at Wikiproject Computing where they can be lightweight triaged into let pass, deprod and fix and deprod with a tendency to deprod if in doubt. Wumbolo's use of PROD on articles was technically well correct apart seemingly in my opinion from failure to look for best practice alternatives and use in potentially controversial prods, and especially a mid importance article likely will always be controversial. The question here is perhaps has Wumbulo in a sophisticated manner performed a course of actions and take a stance that was not in good faith and deliberately to make a WP:POINT. There may be questions of failure to follow WP:BEFORE, failure to consider WP:BUNDLE and perhaps failure to contact the project first to see if they had any solutions prior to bulk AfD's. There may be questions of WP:TWINKLEABUSE. I would notice Wumbulo is a WP:NPP and seems to have been targeted just before this period.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Wumbolo's approach; I warned him months ago that inclusionists like Govvy would complain. There's nothing wrong with Wumbolo's nominations that I've seen. I PROD stuff all the time in order to affect a deletion when an AfD would only elicit wrong opinions like Govvy's. Even at AfD, Wumbolo admits when he was wrong. I recommend trouting Govvy for wasting our time. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Wasting who's time? You edit wikipedia because you have time on your hands! Also, Guitar Pro is point indication that in my opinion Wumbolo is nominating articles for deletion without analysing what the page is. If he knew the industry and how used some of this software programs are, then he might not bother nominating these articles. This is more about this abundant delete culture simple because you don't know and all you are going by is GNG rules? This is poor process procedure, wikipedia is about the collective team effort and no one person should go about nominating a string of articles without a bit of input from one of the projects. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Now, you're wasting my time. It is not incumbent upon Wumbolo or anyone else to know the industry. Either the subject passes notability criteria or it goes. Inveterate fans like you expect the subjects you like to be written about without presenting any sources to make a claim of notability. That WikiProject members show up en masse at a given AfD to !vote keep doesn't make Wumbolo wrong. What's going on here is that cabals of editors expect special treatment and they become irate when they don't get it. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Many of the commenters to the AfDs have included possible sources, so I disagree with your assertion "without presenting any sources" as that is not what is happening. Yes several of the articles definitely could have better sourcing and a few of the articles probably should get deleted or merged wmii for example but the commenters for the most point have pointed that out. I know on several of the AfDs I've spent time checking and evaluating sources. AfD is not for article cleanup, there is a reason that WP:BEFORE suggests "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. I've noticed now that there's a group of editors that stalk Wumbolo's AFD noms and vote keep together based on the fact that Wumbolo is making bad AFD noms because they're all getting a bunch of keep votes, which is circular logic. This is unacceptable. It's WP:Wikihounding and it's creating an imbalanced perspective of Wumbolo's nominations. In fact, a bunch of these are receiving non-admin closures as well, despite the fact that it's the same cabal of editors voting keep. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I tend to peruse a lot of PRODs and AfDs Wikiproject computing. I'm specifically tracking Wumbulo's forty or so since the X386 redirect, but I've been involved in 8/10 others as well. I certainly raised my eyebrows particularly at one or two of the non-admin closures ... though did nothing as quite frankly the end result would not have changed. An option might be to comment on remaining (unlisted) AfDs not heading for delete AfD may be controversial and to request an admin closure .. I won't commit to doing this but I may do this. I think some people who have come to AfD's or who have been trying to save articles have not really had much experience at that, some have learned good and bad practice from me, sometimes without the nuances. I'd like to think I'm just reasonably good at finding references and citing, not necessarily so good at policies. I don't think Wumbolo's really helped himself in all of this, I am minded his approach has not been constructive and may likely be viewed as disruptive. It's also the case the 'savers' are doing a lot more work throwing up 'references' and not really understanding why these might not count and a careful analysis of why these may not count towards notability. There may be some lessons learned in this, for example if an article was not Wikiproject tagged such as Cyber Centurion, and perhaps some other tweaks to advice. I have no doubt experienced admins are viewing these discussions. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources have been found, noms have been questioned, by different editors. No evidence for a "cabal", circular logic or hounding has been presented. If several editors independently think there's disruption and bring it here, forcing editors to find sources which should have been done at BEFORE, that reflects on the bad noms. Some of the AfDs have been relisted once or twice, so more participation should be encouraged not delegitimised. Widefox; talk 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that your claims of "mass AFDs that are almost always voted keep on the basis of BEFORE" is not a claim you can really make, since it's a self fulfilling prophecy. If Wumbolo's noms are so bad and malicious, there should be plenty of neutral editors perusing AFD to catch them right? Why do you feel the need to track every single one of Wumbolo's AFD noms? Tracking someone's contributions so intently can create the feeling that a user is unwanted. Maybe it's best to just let it go and realize that Wikipedia's systems are more than robust enough to handle a single so-called "mass AFD nominator". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Bringing this issue of a claim of lack of BEFORE is from several editors, one of which started this ANI, some AfDs have been SNOW, or closed as such. It doesn't assist Wumbolo to block him learning why there's issues if the issues are denied. Attacking one of the many messengers continues the being in-denial. Widefox; talk 19:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• I do agree with the logic, just not the targets. Something that is a core operating system component on the majority of Unix-like systems today is obviously notable. However, there is a problem with too much UGC being used as sources on articles related to open source software, and I do agree that while something like X.org is clearly notable, Obscure Window Manager #291 isn't. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• This is mass nomination (including some major articles like xterm, X.Org Server, some obscure, but the scale is shown by a large percentage of Template:Desktop environments and window managers for X11 and Wayland including one of the categories X window manager referred to as "spam" [87]) combined with a lack of WP:BEFORE. Both are at best pointy, at worst just disruption, and picking up much comments from editors at the AfDs all saying the same. I don't see any sign this is acknowledged, so it's reasonable to bring here. Almost all of the AfDs I've seen are unanimous (or near) Keeps. Widefox; talk 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is absolutely an exaggeration. A lot of Wumbolo's AFDs attract shitty keep votes from editors who use this software and therefore think it's inherently notable. It's a reflection of Wikipedia's WP:Systemic bias. In one of the more blatant examples of systemic bias, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xmonad_(3rd_nomination)#Xmonad has a keep vote from an editor who literally just has a "gut feeling" that the software is notable. Meanwhile, the other keep votes don't cite policy or show any sources. Just because a bunch of keep votes land on an AFD doesn't mean the AFD is bad or made in bad faith. It could also mean that Wumbolo nominates AFDs that certain groups of editors are unhappy with because they have a bias for these articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That reply doesn't address the validity of failing to do basic BEFORE as required, or the mass nomination, which is the big problem. A scattergun hits the target sometimes, huh? That one is borderline out the 40-50 is an exception that proves the rule. (AGF ignored) . To extrapolate from one AfD to 50 is, an exaggeration, yes. Widefox; talk 18:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• The nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments is a particular egregious example, as the reason given is "seems like an advertisement of one company's products", when the article is clearly a list of comparison of different notable open source desktop environments, nearly all with their own article. Bradv 01:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bradv (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) wumbolo ^^^ 15:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No Wumbolo, I wasn't canvassed to come here. Your talk page has been on my watchlist since your shenanigans at White genocide conspiracy theory. Bradv 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bradv: I find that rather unbelievable. You were pinged about an hour before you commented here at ANI. But the ANI thread itself was a couple of days old. wumbolo ^^^ 15:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't pinged to come here. I was already watching this page, along with your talk page. Even if I were, does that mean that my comment here is invalid? This is the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour that needs to be brought to an end. Bradv 15:22, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So it's WP:BATTLEGROUND of me to just point out that you were canvassed (which you were by Widefox as a matter of fact, regardless of whether you came here because of it or not), and it's not battleground behavior to canvass someone?! And why do you think that canvassing to ANI is not a problem? Are not enough neutral people watching ANI? wumbolo ^^^ 15:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

(no notification has been made to me of such an accusations at ANI, so I'll ignore) Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: People seem to disagree about the merits of Wumbolo's AfDs, but there does seem to be general concern about the increasing number of them to the exclusion of doing WP:BEFORE. He went from 10 AfDs in July to 11 AfDs in August to 15 in one day alone (September 12) and 16 the following day (September 13) [88]. I propose that either (1) Wumbolo be warned to restrict his AfD noms to 2 per week; (2) Wumbolo be officially restricted to 2 AfDs per week; or (3) an alternative proposal that will solve/reduce his ever-increasing number of AfD noms. Softlavender (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Both quality and quantity are a problem. Quality it's more than BEFORE, it's misrepresentation [89] [90], wikilaywering [91] [92] [93] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination), WP:POINTY, and WP:BLUDGEON (on most/all of them), and a relist less than a year after the last Keep AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GetRight (4th nomination) . Not bold, but reckless. Does anyone in their right mind think xterm, X window manager (a category of articles), and X.Org Server should be deleted? The AfDs are like a newbie with a pointy stick bludgeoning all that turn up in disbelief.

Considering it's behaviour in the AfDs as well, any restriction should address that too. 1) plus some limit on comments seems a start. Widefox; talk 02:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you come up with a restriction or sanction (or warning/suggestion) that would cover and prevent all of that? Or just brainstorm some possibilities? Maybe just a topic ban on computer/tech-related AfDs. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's not just computer, it's disruption in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thinsulate [94], and it's ongoing #1 #2. Suggest general deletion restriction (PROD/AfD). Widefox; talk 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Topic bans from deletion per se are a hard sell (and require lots and lots of diffs). It's easier to start with provable problems, provable disruption. I think it's clear that Wumbolo does not do WP:BEFORE, that he is targeting tech and computer articles, that he is fairly clueless about notability even beyond his lack of WP:BEFORE, and that he is over-AfDing. Therefore, a good start would be a topic ban from computer/tech-related AfDs. I would also like his PROD log to be easily visible (he shouldn't be deliberately hiding it as he admits to doing), so we could also propose that he enable the PROD log feature of Twinkle, as power~enwiki recommended. Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree to just be tech deletion, and PROD log. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about comments like this one which imply that sources were not properly evaluated when first looked at before making the AfD. PaleAqua (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• There does seem to be some of the AFDs here that are in the right ballpark (in terms of the articles not really showing how the GNG is met, or issues with the sourcing), these are not flat out bad nominations or nominations made in bad faith, and some of the logic to keep these is questionable too (feeling more like pile-on !voting to keep them). Wumbolo's AFD noms are asking proper questions as to why we are keeping these articles (particularly on these small commercial or free-software packages, which do fall into the realm of WP:NCORP's stronger sourcing aspects). The only issue that really can be begged is the frequency/rate of nomination, which belies a proper BEFORE step, suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first. --Masem (t) 14:35, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

" ... suggesting that they be warned to only nominate one or two a week and see if there's potential other merge targets for information first." That was my initial proposal; I would support that. Softlavender (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Note quite - WP:BEFORE is clear that sources don't have to be in the article not a proper basis for a nomination, so they aren't proper noms. Yes to the rest. Widefox; talk 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• This complaint is utterly ridiculous. Wumbolo's AFD nominations are clearly in good faith. Wumobolo's always pulled up articles that are extremely problematic or lacking in references. Problem is, other editors who are Linux people or whatever immediately get offended that their favorite little piece of free software or whatever is getting nominated for deletion, and then vote Speedy Keep with a shitty rationale. This discussion is a reflection of WP:Systemic bias that is all too common on WP:AFD, which is why we see tons of crappy software articles get kept with the justification "oh I use it so...there must be sources...?". This is a REALLY terrible mindset, and shame on the person who brought this to ANI. Just because we're not all worshippers of free software doesn't mean you need to bring people to ANI. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:54, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

My favorite piece of free software is GIMP, not anything ever nommed by Wumbolo, and I don't see this complaint as anything near meritless. WP:BEFORE states that an editor should "...take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." which is the problem, as I see it. Wumbolo is not searching to see if reliable sources exist, he's simply glancing at the reflist to see if any are used. Nomming these for deletion isn't improving the project (when the obvious "quick" solution would be to hatnote the article), it's simply creating a disruptive atmosphere. No-one has, to my knowledge, suggested that Wumbolo is not nomming these in good faith. They're simply suggesting that Wumbolo is making the same mistake over and over and not correcting themself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? People are just assuming that Wumbolo hasn't done their homework, because they're biased in favor of these free software articles. "Xmonad? Oh yeah, I use that, that's totally notable, Wumbolo clearly hasn't made reasonable attempts to look for sources" -- the line of thinking for this accusation of not following WP:BEFORE. This is a very serious accusation based on shoddy evidence. As someone who uses free software a bunch too, I'm also a little surprised whenever I see some of these nominations. But I don't take personal offense at free software being nominated for deletion, and realize someone who may not be a free software user might not immediately realize that certain software is widely known among free software users. And in fact, editors who aren't involved with free software may end up being the best judges for whether free software articles are truly notable. I try to objectively evaluate free software articles instead of rely on gut feelings or my personal biases in favor of them. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Proof of a negative isn't a reasonable burden per se. But..the evidence of many AfDs together (rather than just Xmonad which you've selected out of ~40) how do you explain trying to delete xterm (and those other major articles) if BEFORE was done? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager nom is just Spam version of Comparison of X window managers. Not notable that's fairly random and incorrect, then there's trying to delete the opposite - the list rather than the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of X Window System desktop environments "...seems like an advertisement of one company's products which is in no way notable" which is about open source software, it appears they haven't even read the article let alone searched for sources! On balance, sources were found for all, some very quickly so its either not done or it's competence. Either way, it shouldn't happen on mass, should it? Widefox; talk 18:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wumbolo hasn't been doing a search or two? How about the fact that a google search for "X.Org Server" returns 222 million results including multiple RSes on the first page? Now please try to explain to me how any reasonable person who did that search (which would constitute the bare minimum an editor could do to look for sources) could think that X.Org Server was not notable.

Look, Wumbolo's not a major computer geek. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that, hence there's nothing wrong with him not being aware of some of these things. There's also no rule saying that an editor must add sources if they find them. Finally, there's no-one suggesting Wumbolo is doing any of this maliciously. I'm certainly not. But these noms are obviously not flying, and so Wumbolo needs to either get serious about WP:BEFORE or stop nomming stuff, because it's a waste of time for multiple people. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see multiple RSes on the first page. TechRepublic has some routine coverage. The rest are garbage (primary, forums, help desks, obviously not about x.org, etc.) on the first page for me. TheRegister has some more routine coverage. So, no, I would reject the WP:GOOGLE numbers argument as well as your failure to cite specific sources which indicate notability under the general notability guideline. But perhaps this is an argument for AFD? :) --Izno (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, when you run a completely different search, you should expect completely different results. I linked my search, and there I see Techrepublic, Ars Technica and PC Magazine, all on the first page. And on the second page? More Ars Technica, Tech Radar, The Register (escaping the walled garden of tech sites, even!) and more Techrepublic. Although, to be fair, I actually work in IT and read more X.Org news than X.org specs, and google's probably figured that out by now. But that doesn't change the fact that a google search is the bare minimum one can do to find sources. And question: How many sites do "routine coverage" of non-notable software?

But if that's our standard (delete anything obscure, whether it's notable or not), then we should probably delete pages like Yukawa interaction because I doubt many non-physicists have heard of that, either. Or maybe, we should rely on coverage in RSes ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So, permit me to comment some more on those sources:

1. TechRepublic 1 is somewhere in the realm between routine and maybe enough detail to stub an article. It's basically a HOWTO. (I would be concerned about basically copying the entire article.)
2. PCMag is a passing mention and is a bit NOTVERSIONHISTORY. "Ubuntu's default (GNOME and X) somewhat supports touchscreens, though Wayland is supposedly the preferred windowing system going forward for such implementations."
3. Ars 1. "Ubuntu made Wayland the default display manager for 17.10, but it has reverted to X.org for the LTS release. It's a sensible change upon reflection given Wayland's long list of incomplete features like, for example, the lack of support for screen sharing in chat/VoIP apps and spotty support for VNC tools." This also is passing. It gives an immediate reason for the above item but is really about Ubuntu.
4. Ars 2. "Ubuntu had settled on the Wayland display server for 17.10 as a default because Canonical wanted to boost 3D graphics capabilities, but it has switched back to X.org graphics server as the default for 18.04, mostly because Wayland's support for screen sharing in applications such as Google Hangouts and Skype isn't quite there." Basically reports the exact same thing as Ars 1.
5. TechRadar "X.Org, for example, is a bit long in the tooth now. It was never really designed with secure computing in mind. So it’s fairly easy— well, not necessarily X.Org actually, but the whole OS; if something is running as a root, or it’s running as your user, then it has the permissions of that user that’s running it." doesn't tell me anything that #1 didn't already.
6. The Register. #1 repeat.

So, maybe it's notable, maybe it's not. But coverage like that I would definitely put in the, "a reasonable BEFORE search could have caused someone to come to the conclusion that X.org isn't notable, even if we were looking at the same Google search" (which clearly has tuned to your interests). It's not about being obscure without evidence of being obscure. It's about what the GNG asks us for: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis original). Computing and software articles are problematic in this regard, because while they document the software great in many cases via WP:PRIMARY sources, they often do a garbage job at telling us what independent sources have said about them. I won't get into physics articles, but I agree some of those more-obscure topics can tend toward "is this really a reasonable article or should it be summarized elsewhere"? However, that's offtopic to this case (WP:OSE) and I wouldn't want to judge those without access to those sources anyway.

I might suggest that users here might want to take a look at AFD stats and AFD stats noms-only. I'll be taking a look at these later I suppose. --Izno (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing in favor of deletion, which is accomplishing very little except convincing me that you don't work in IT. If that's your goal here, congrats. If your goal is to prove you're capable of wikilawyering, then congrats because you've done that, too. But if your goal is to show that Wumbolo actually did follow WP:BEFORE then I'm afraid you've failed quite thoroughly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

You're arguing in favor of deletion and you're capable of wikilawyerin. No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting (or one of the other conclusions). I have no strong opinion on the article topic and clearly have no intention to go !vote--I'm leaving my comment here instead so that we don't all decide that Wumbolo has done some grievous thing without actually backing up and saying "is he right?". you don't work in IT I work in the aerospace and defense industry; one of my company's products makes use of X11. Thanks for playing. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm assessing the sources you provided, which is exactly the job we do when we have to decide whether an article is worth keeping or deleting Ummm.... Have you considered the fact that you literally just contradicted yourself? In one sentence? Probably not. Nothing in the rest of your comment is worth responding to (it's worth a laugh, though) so have a nice life. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:08, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

(←) I have not argued for deletion. I have not argued for keeping. I have not argued for any other x, y, or z outcome that would be typical of an AFD. So when you claim that I am "arguing in favor of deletion", you are wrong. It is your extrapolation that what I have said favors deletion, that I am arguing for such. (Please, do try to find where I said "the article should be kept/deleted/x/y/zd".) But I chose deliberately not to argue over whether the article should be deleted because the point of this section is "did Wumbolo get it right?". (Else, you might have found me at WP:Articles for deletion/X.org instead, where perhaps you should provide those sources to aid the closing admin in determining whether the article should be deleted.) To which I gave an opinion, separate to those AFDs, that in this case, he made a reasonable nomination of the article topic, where I questioned some of the sourcing that were "found" to support the belief he did not perform a WP:BEFORE search. The reason I included the AFD stats link a few replies above is that people who comment here in this section should also come to their own conclusions on whether he has acted reasonably, by doing some of the research for those AFDs he has either nominated (or commented in). I plan to do so, separate to this little engagement with you, because that's what's fair. --Izno (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should go to some of the AfDs and see what is being said. Comments like this that immediately present 5 impeccable sources along with pointing out the lack of WP:BEFORE only to be responded to by Wumbolo with the eye-poppingly false claim that the Fedora/Red Hat bible and the CentOS bible are "identical" paint a very different picture of what's going on than you do. So instead of arguing in favor of deletion here (which you absolutely are doing, whether that fact suits you or not) while ignoring the fact that a rather large number of editors are saying the same exact thing about these noms, maybe you should be off browsing the AfDs and learning that they don't, in any way, need me to come drop off a couple of good google hits to end in a WP:SNOW close. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• AfD is breaking down under the weight of spurious nominations done without a decent attempt at WP:BEFORE, and Wumbulo is part of the problem. We need to require competency at AfD, and if someone serially nominates articles as unsourced without a serious effort at determining that sources do not in fact exist, they are failing in this area and should be warned, and if they continue, blocked. They should also, upon warning, make a good faith effort to review their nominations and withdraw nominations that don't measure up. If they don't stop making bad noms, and won't withdraw the bad ones they've started, it should be considered they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. We need to put a stop to this disruption, now.Jacona (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Systemic bias correction

User:FenixFeather is on a mission to reduce systemic bias "Explain to me how trying to reduce systemic bias is a violation of AGF. I believe that it's a serious issue that's limiting the quality of the project. Are you denying the reality and importance of systemic bias?" (in fairness they pull back "I'm not even using systemic bias as a justification for deletion here"), "The point of this thread was to call you out for not following AGF and perpetuating Systemic bias". The drama "dick move", "shame on both of you", accusation of "stalking" would be better brought here, rather than at these AfDs. How many articles have been deleted? How long has this been going on? AfDs like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Youtube-dl were 14 days ago, where Wumbolo nommed, and only FenixFeather and one other editor !voted. Youtube-dl was included in Comparison of YouTube downloaders, there's two more AfDs of articles there - one nom each for the two editors. Clearly they aren't the same editor. Widefox; talk 22:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

What is the point of this? I was addressing the fact that someone had accused another editor of bad faith without considering that maybe that editor had just made a mistake due to lack of knowledge on the topic. Are you saying I'm User:Wumbolo or? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On second reading, it does seem like you're accusing me of being the same editor. You should bring this to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place for this. And no, there's no conspiracy to delete articles. There were literally no sources for youtube-dl; I looked. I don't know why you think we're on some weird crusade to delete articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me address the stalking claim as well. You went into Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and voted to keep, way after the AFD was created. I thought this was really weird because this was right after we were getting into discussion here and other articles. And apparently you think Wumbolo and I are in on some conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles and free software articles. I personally do believe that youtube downloader articles must have a very high standard of inclusion to belong on Wikipedia, being WP:MILL stuff, and after Wumbolo nominated youtube-dl someone else suggested that the other youtube downloader articles were "just as notable", so I looked through the other youtube downloader articles and nominated the one I thought had the worst sourcing. Being new to AFD, I didn't want to nominate all of the youtube downloader articles at once, so I wanted to take it one at a time. Anyways, I hope this satisfies your theory about the conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The point is: you and Wumbolo should immediately stop new AfDs, stop BLUDGEONING AfD participants and stop creating disruption just because other editors are !voting to keep stuff that goes against your mission. Your example is good Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy (software) is your nom, 1 !voter (Keep), (relisted), Wumbolo (Delete), and I (Keep). The other AfDs are generally you and Wumbolo delete, everyone else keep. That seems dangerous when there's only one other !voter as per Youtube-dl. You're evidence for stalking is that I !voted at AfD? or you don't like my !vote? Looks like more participation is needed to me. Isn't a lack of scrutiny combined with mass and sometimes reckless PROD and AfD from Wumbolo (combined with your deletions) something that we need to scrutinise? Widefox; talk 00:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I won't deny that I'm new to AFD, and that I'm still learning. What I don't appreciate is this intense hostility from you throughout AFD, and that random vote today really meshes with your story of how you're trying to fight the FenixFeather-Wumbolo conspiracy to delete youtube downloader articles. I'm not bludgeoning anyone; the comments you link to above are an attempt to get you and Bradv to recognize that it's not a good idea to immediately accuse someone in bad faith for having stated something wrong in the AFD justification. As I stated on that thread, I wasn't arguing about the !vote itself, but about the unnecessary and unfounded accusation of bad faith. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also you really want me to stop making AFD noms? I've only made two recently, because like I said, I'm still learning so I'm proceeding cautiously. Go ahead and take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_the_Left-wing_insurgency_in_Greece and see how it fits into your conspiracy theory. You really want to make me stop nominating AFDs just because I'm concerned about systemic bias? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

"As far as I know, I'm the only one who's been actively pointing out systemic bias in tech articles." It's about stopping the disruption or others here may have to intervene. Widefox; talk 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. You were asking me whether Wumbolo also was discussing systemic bias. I said no, I don't believe Wumbolo has. What are you trying to prove here? That Wumbolo and I are the same editor? If so, take it to WP:SPI. If you're trying to prove that I'm against systemic bias, then yes, I am. Systemic bias is a widely recognized problem on Wikipedia because most editors are Western, male, and in some sort of STEM field. Can you clarify what I'm supposed to defend myself against here? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See WP:POVFIGHTER / WP:ADVOCACY#I only want to help Wikipedia! If a significant number of editors protest that an editor is biased, the editor should listen to feedback and either change their editing style, or refrain from editing topics where they cannot be sufficiently neutral There's a significant number editors at the AfDs who are complaining about Wumbolo's AfDs, backed by you, battleground disruption, and not convincing others per WP:REHASH, I'm asking you to refrain to prevent ongoing disruption on mass AfDs. Can you? Widefox; talk 12:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You're really stretching that definition. I've pointed out systemic bias on... two AFD articles I think? Once where someone voted on "gut feeling" and another time where someone accused the nominator of bad faith upon getting something technically wrong, both of which I thought were legitimate instances of perpetuating systemic bias. That makes me an advocate that a significant number of editors find annoying? This is actually absurd. I have no idea why you want administrative action against me because I guess I kinda pissed you off in an AFD? Can you let your feelings go for a moment and realize how unnecessarily stressful you're making this experience? I literally had a nightmare about this because you dragged me to ANI and are trying your hardest to drive me away by taking things I say out of context. People like you is why I quit Wikipedia the first time I tried editing. It's a hostile environment that immediately tries to shut down any identification of systemic issues. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 16:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The civility "dick move" and AfD disruption (mass nom, and BLUDGEONING in the AfDs from both of you) - diffs are above. Have you seen how many editors are complaining about these AfDs? Widefox; talk 19:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've only nominated 2 AFDs recently, and 3 AFDs in my entire Wikipedia career, two of which have been uncontroversial deletes. That's massive disruption? Look at what you're doing. You're taking a novice editor, with only about 3k edits, to ANI simply for having voted for a few AFDs that you dislike and for suggesting that systemic bias might be the cause of perspective issues. What kind of atmosphere are you creating here? And what about that WP:SPI accusation? Are you going to report me as a sockpuppet or was that just a character attack designed to further alienate me from the project? If your intent is to protect the project, instead of simply retaliating against me for I don't know how I hurt you, then you should be taking actions to report me as a sockpuppet instead of just sitting here and engaging in mudslinging. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you two just going to continue this back-and-forth thing indefinitely? If so, maybe you should do it on someone's talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I feel obligated to defend myself here since I think an admin will be evaluating this at some point? I apologize if I'm not supposed to do that here. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to leave a closing argument to summarize here, since further back and forth may not be productive. I've only recently begun browsing AFDs a few days ago. Because a few of my votes happened to match with Wumbolo's, I've been dragged into here and accused of sockpuppeting and violating AGF, despite the fact that I was only trying to point out that sometimes, perspective issues can cloud our judgement. I've not accused anyone of acting in bad faith. Using the phrase "dick move" has been labeled as "uncivil" here but my intent was not to personally attack anyone, but instead describe how accusing someone of acting in bad faith for having gotten something wrong can be mean and unwelcoming. In response, Widefox has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, as shown by their going through all my AFD votes relating to software and voting on them. Widefox even dredged up youtube-dl which goes back several weeks. For evidence of this Wikihounding, please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DownThemAll!_(2nd_nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airy_(software) and note the timestamps on those comments. Widefox also attempted to canvas Bradv to this ANI on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_X_Window_System_desktop_environments after seeing that most editors on this ANI discussion agree that Wumbolo, while mistaken sometimes, was most likely acting in good faith and not being disruptive. As demonstrated by this ANI thread, Widefox believes that Wumbolo and I are on some sort of crusade to "mass delete" software articles, and this belief has driven their labeling of me as disruptive and their Wikihounding in an attempt to protect Wikipedia from this deletion campaign. While this may be in good faith, it's unfounded and has caused me considerable stress and made me feel unwelcome, and is a form of harassment I would like to stop. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

FenixFeather should be more careful of policy guideline WP:NEXIST in future,"Delete...Not a single source is cited..." along with Wumbolo BEFORE. (as no evidence for anything wrong has been given, there's no case for me to answer. To set the record straight "dick move" was directed at another editor not me I believe). Widefox; talk 20:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This one was created on the 16th of September Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capella (notation program). Szzuk (talk) 08:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• A bit late to the party, but I understand where Wumbolo is coming from and I do understand the concerns of systemic bias and I very much agree, I have seem many articles relating to Linux/Open Source Software which are of questionable notability, so I agree they ought to have at least some discussion. I am a Linux user myself, but as an editor that is not relevant and there are plenty of articles which I myself have nominated for deletion that I would personally like to keep solely because WP:ILIKEIT. FYI, I am currently neutral on a topic ban, however that may be subject to change. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions

I think we are all concerned about the root cause of improving the quality of sourcing on many Wikipedia articles, the issues occur about how we go about it. I'm concerned about the 'discussions' on several AfDs especially recently on WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune and cooling off is surely called for. Are there any suggestions for WP:TBANs or WP:IBANs (I'm aware I coud be affected by an WP:IBAN and I am an an inclusionist and not neutral in this mess but i likely have work to do in it). Any TBAN would need I think to limit PRODs and AfDs and possibly content edits. However a cooling no-fault IBAN may be currrently useful. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Editors here are pushing for a WP:COMPETENCE ban on the basis of Wumbolo nominating articles that have been "overwhelmingly kept" (I think we all agree that Wumbolo is acting in good faith) – however, this is entirely misleading because the same group of editors (Djm, Bradv, Widefox) are following Wumbolo around and voting keep on Wumbolo's software AFDs, often with the justification that Wumbolo is "mass nominating overwhelmingly keep" AFDs, a self fulfilling prophecy. A simple glance through Wumbolo's AFDs will show that these editors have followed Wumbolo around far more than I ever have, which is surprising because Widefox accused me of being a Wumbolo sock. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen, Wumbolo is actually nominating borderline articles. A lot of these software have debatably reliable/significant sources. I'm strongly against silencing Wumbolo simply because they would like to judge software based on policy rather than based on "well, it's used widely in industry. Me and all of my friends use it. Don't you know the industry? Don't you work in IT fields?". This sort of silencing is exclusionary and explicitly advances WP:Systemic bias, where those who have different perspectives from us are shut down. Silencing different perspectives is not the solution here; the solution here is to set aside our own expectations about what is notable or not, and consider each AFD objectively. And trust that other editors and admins will do their due diligence and catch the articles that should be kept. Instead, what's happening is an emotional overreaction because of the fear that certain beloved articles like X.org were nominated for deletion. A lot of these "obviously notable" software in the Linux/software world is not notable in the broader world, and that's okay. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That polemic nicely illustrates why you've been included in this ANI thread. Disruption furthering systemic bias correction against consensus. It is just WP:BABY delete content that is actually properly sourced, and citations which are valid, by misunderstanding our sourcing-related policies and guidelines. - the exact opposite of policy, and there's overwhelming consensus against it. The link does not include an accusation of sock. Can you either provide a diff or strike it, as it's a straw man. I said the opposite ". Clearly they aren't the same editor.". Do you have evidence for the rest of this diversion from Wumbolo's editing? Wumbolo's AfD success rate is 27% [95] - that's before the bulk of these articles are closed, so before those named editors (presumably), so how do the facts support a conspiracy and circular logic? e.g. [96] and [97] I'm the first to !vote Merge, an exceptional one has merit "Delete per nom". Those three named editors don't have the same voting record. Other editors (not of those three) have said "Seems like Wumbulo is spreading AfD over the Wikipedi. ... See also the list of AfD's" -Bassklampfe "This is a private and completely wrong opinion by user "wumbolo"... destruction of knowledge?" -L.Willms, Xterm - SNOW keep (I did not !vote), "I'm uneasy about this mass AfD/Prod" -Michael Bednarek, "I think Wumbolo's interpretation of when sources count as "independent" is excessively strict." -SJK "not a valid cause for deletion" -JavierCantero "I think Wumbolo's interpretation ... overly strict." -SJK "With this reason you may want to tag all Download managers...a clear Keep" -Denniss, "Disruptive nomination" -2a01:4c8:b:7127:f201:a496:c036:897c (SNOW keep), "With a simple WP:BEFORE ... per policy, should be WP:PRESERVE..." -Mark viking, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager closed Wikipedia:SKCRIT#3 The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question. -by Power~enwiki "", KWin closed The result was keep. Overwhelming Keep consensus and a failure to check WP:BEFORE -AmericanAir88 "Keep and BAN User:Wumbolo from any further Wikipedia editing or deletion requests. Eradicate those in the anti-information army!" -206.169.91.66 . Misrepresenting consensus as anything else is AGF without evidence, and the three named editors shouldn't have to defend themselves with no diffs or specific case. The quotes used are not from any AfD I've seen. No such argument has been made, have they? (no diffs provided) Widefox; talk 17:15, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune, I think it's also disingenuous to claim that the discussion is "concerning". I'm assuming Djm is referring to the fact that Wumbolo lashed out a little bit over the course of the discussion. Yet I think it's excusable that Wumbolo is a little frustrated, because I can't imagine having a group of the same editors constantly breathing down my neck in AFDs. That's gotta be incredibly frustrating. It shows both an unconcern for other editors' well being and a strong distrust of the AFD process. The same can be said of draggin me to ANI simply because I voted delete on a few of Wumbolo AFDs, far fewer AFDs than this group of editors has hounded Wumbolo for. This kind of adverserial editing where WP:ANI is used to shut down unwanted opinions and voices is really saddening to me, especially coming from editors who have so much more experience than me and that I would have looked up to in the past. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support per my comment on previous section. This is only about unconvincing BEFORE, COMPETENCE, BLUDGEON, AGF/civility (See FenixFeather above) and LISTEN/IDHT over an unknown number of articles, over at least 3 months, combined with an attempt at systemic bias correction without adequate scrutiny (e.g. no PROD/AfD logs, deleted articles can't be seen by non-admins). There's no evidence to be portrayed as inclusionist(s)/deletionist(s) or cabals/sock/meat. It's not clear how many articles have been deleted by PROD, but deletion is still ongoing and AfD nom success is 27% [98] (that will drop when these are closed): a July PROD [99] has been REFUNDed [100] then AfD [101], there's been incorrect PROD [102] after PROD [103] now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FoxyTunes. National school programming competitions have been targeted, which seems aligned with our core values. Wouldn't readers wanting National Olympiad in Informatics, China, Syrian Olympiad in Informatics be better served by being redirected to International Olympiad in Informatics rather than being PRODed? This lack of BEFORE / attempt at countering systemic bias has unintended consequences of deleting undersourced content (against WP:NEXIST), in this case deleting underrepresented geo regions increasing systemic bias. Widefox; talk 00:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that Wumbolo has not ever mentioned systemic bias. All the discussions on systemic bias was originated by me, and not used to justify the deletion of anything, and was only used to criticize certain keep rationales. Widefox keeps muddling up this discussion because they seem to be extremely uncomfortable with the existence of systemic bias. In any case, systemic bias is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether Wumbolo should be sanctioned. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per everything FenixFeather said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Care to reason it, as FenixFeather has misrepresented the only thing quoted, and provided no evidence for the rest. Widefox; talk 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

In a word: no. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No severe issues with AfD nominations of Wumbolo. He has nominated a few articles that could easily result in delete but consensus was against that. Maybe wumbolo will learn what community currently prefers to keep or delete but that can be done without sanctions. GenuineArt (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. He very obviously didn't conduct before on a spate of nominations but I don't think this behaviour is long standing enough to warrant an afd ban. I may support a mandatory prod log if it was separately discussed. Szzuk (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC) I'm redacting my own vote, I'm just too undecided and too uncertain of the process so i will leave it to others. Szzuk (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Wumbolo does good work on AFD, and if an article does meet the relevant policy, it will be kept. Also per FenixFeather. » Shadowowl | talk 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- Firstly it's unclear exactly what form of ban is being requested here, secondly there hasn't been anything even remotely resembling a case for one. Reyk _YO! 12:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed the nearest to a firm proposal was a cooling no-fault IBAN may be currently useful which given the AfD debate on the young people's article WP:Articles for deletion/Cyber Centurion which despite a request to stop seemed to continue to WP:Articles for deletion/FireTune may not have been appropriate if it continued. It may be the that would have eased naturally or it may be thoughts of a IBAN may have focused the minds. But I would be minded the need for such an IBAN has currently subsided. The problems caused by the intensity of raised AfDs and PRODs, which are at the timing of the nominator, and the amount of effort the to respond to such nominations is an issue, is a problem. PRODs not allocated to a WikiProject monitoring alerts are more vulnerable. And a lack of some form of sanction might be a bad precedent ... in fact probably would be a great opportunity for some disruptive IPs. Perhaps it is good at this point if I:

• Suspend any proposal for no fault WP:IBANs providing biting remains eased on the AfDs.
• See if more general guidelines can be proposed if a large number of PRODs/AfDs to avoid swamping ... could be raised in lieu of and TBAN limitation.

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions as there is no consensus of any wrongdoing and in any case the nominations have eased, perhaps this can be closed soon, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Withdraw sanction proposals per suggestion of Atlantic306 and also because of some guidance seeming to develop at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination). Thankyou.

  See Also As Widefox has pointed out DGG's guidance on view of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination) was I believe a key statement (and a possibly positive direction going forward).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Systemic bias continued

• This is Split out from Sanctions section as appears to have incrementally drifted out of context for that section and has gathered undue weight. Please remember Widefox's first statement here is split from it's original context. Thankyou. 08:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

See also For anyone still interested, the tactic of deleting overrepresented areas due to systemic bias is discussed at WP:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination), and DGG has kindly given his view on notability. Widefox; talk 20:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Widefox is once again misrepresenting why I brought up systemic bias. First of all, there is no "tactic of deleting overrepresented areas". I'm not sure why Widefox is assuming that Wumbolo's motivation in nominating these articles was to reduce systemic bias considering I was the only one who mentioned that topic in the first place. Second, as I explained on the linked thread, systemic bias is not a justification for deletion. It's something I'm bringing up in order to exhort editors not to give topics they're familiar with special treatment. I'm using it as an argument in favor of making decisions based on policy rather than on emotion or gut feeling. So please, Widefox, stop misrepresenting what I'm saying about systemic bias, because you are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by twisting my genuine concern with systemic bias to be a deletion tactic, and also attributing it to Wumbolo for no apparent reason. The most frustrating thing about this ANI situation has been your unfounded accusations that my bringing up systemic bias is some sort of tactic in my war to delete whatever group of articles you think I hate so much. Please try to give other editors the benefit of the doubt and realize that maybe someone bringing up systemic bias is just worried about systemic bias, and isn't using it as a "tactic" in some nefarious overarching master plan. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 21:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(Please always provide diffs for accusations, else they will be ignored) Widefox; talk 23:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I was trying to make an accusation? In any case, the relevant diff I'm discussing in my previous comment is this one: [104]. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

That diff does not support your statements. Please provide evidence. Also, be more careful at ANI to not make claims like "I'm not sure why x is assuming that y's motivation". Don't assume about other editors, and provide evidence. This is just time wasting here. Widefox; talk 15:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay this has gotten ridiculous, I got back from holiday and I opened this up a while back because I felt Wumbolo needed a stern warning for over doing on the AfD front. But now I feel he is being bullied by a few users. In my view Widefox and Djm-leighpark seem to have been WP:Wikihounding across multiple AfDs and in my view that's just wrong. Wumbolo makes good points about some AfDs but others, I feel he needs to have a bit more faith, post to talk pages, projects first give people a chance to have a go, if no response then ye, AfD the article. Well, that's my two-cents. Govvy (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikihounding from one software AfD to another software AfD is one thing. Wikihounding me from a software AfD to a comic book publisher AfD, like you did, is a whole new level. The next time (and every time after that) I am followed by someone to an AfD absolutely unrelated to software, I am considering opening a sub-section against them. I will not tolerate people accusing me of not following BEFORE on software AfDs and biographical articles and random unclassifiable topics and songs etc. wumbolo ^^^ 17:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: Er, it was in yesterdays AfD list when I went through it, recognised the publisher because I have 20 stargate comics in my comic-book collection published by them, so I commented. So I raised a concern and a question. I didn't cast keep or delete... This ANI is still here, hasn't been closed, you're still nominating multiple AfDs even know I tried to ask you to step away. If this ANI is still going and you're still nominating then there is always going to be a conflict of interest, because you're nominating articles while this ANI is open is clearly disruption which has created a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I feel sorry for you, you clearly are creating enemies on wikipedia and the way I view it you have lacked common-sense in multiple cases. You really need to work on other things instead of deleting articles. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions for User:FenixFeather

Okay, at this point, I'm extremely stressed out and frustrated from Widefox accusing me of being disruptive, uncivil, and violating Wikipedia policies all over the place, no matter what I do. This is in response to the accusations you posted on my talk page. @Widefox: Let's make this crystal clear: What are the chronic, intractable behaviorial problems that I have? And what kind of administrative action do you want against me? Let's hash it out here instead of continuously accusing me across multiple AFDs and my talk page. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The disruption has slowed (less AfDs etc), it's just playing out at one AfD mainly now [105], so I don't see how admin action is needed at this time. This likely contentious talk refactor shouldn't have happened per WP:REFACTOR, was contended/reverted by Bradv talk refactor repeated explicitly against REFACTOR, continded/reverted by me, contentous talk refactoring where you've been reverted by two editors doesn't need admin intervention unless repeated as you've been given an appropriate 3RR warning and links to read why not to do it once, so all looks below the radar to me. I've even asked to continue this on your talk and ask if you can decese spreading the discussion over more pages here, as was suggested above to continue back/forth on a talk. Widefox; talk 00:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You just posted to my talk page [106] "This is why I brought you to ANI". So I'm really confused why you did that. Are you just trying to make Wikipedia as unpleasant an experience for me as possible so I quit? I hope not. The edit warring warning you put on my talk page was really questionable too, considering that I had already responded to a comment on the project page without reverting your revert. I'm sorry if I can't convince you that I'm not trying to disrupt the project. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to answer that question, by the way. I just want you to know that there is another human behind this username and that as important as Wikipedia is, I really really hope you stop to consider that before you label other editors as disruptive and take them into ANI. It's not a fun experience for anyone, and I honestly believe we can interact on Wikipedia without needing to be adverserial. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly this drama section was quickly followed by the next drama section (below). So I may change my mind on sanctions not being necessary per WP:BOOMERANG for clear attempts to bait/provoke (please take me to ANI - this section) and escallate. FenixFeather provoking and mass nomming and blanking (Haskell) articles (per below) at the same time as trying to sanction the editor who's adding the most sources and keeping AfDs to policy. If others want to find sources, I'd happily do something else as it makes me uncomfortable being singled out like this just because I'm standing up to bad, mass noms. Widefox; talk 04:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Sanctions for User:Widefox

Okay, that's it. I've tried being patient. I've tried explaining my point of view. I've tried to convince Widefox that I'm here to improve the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I'm tearing my hair out and I absolutely cannot deal with this anymore. Widefox continues to WP:WIKIHOUND me across Wikipedia. I'm on the verge of quitting Wikipedia again. I deleted a WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of Haskell code examples on Haskell features and they immediately reverted it, while at the same time, once again accusing me of being disruptive and hating Haskell without evidence. Diff here: [107]. Why can't you just revert without snide remarks about me? What is so hard about interacting with other editors in a normal, non-hostile basis? Just say "Hey, I disagree that this looks like a manual. Let's discuss this on the talk page" and I'll go discuss it with you! There's no need to accuse me of hating Haskell. I'll agree that Haskell isn't my main language by any means, but the time I did use it I enjoyed it. What reason do I have to decrease the quality of Haskell articles?

More diffs where Widefox accuses me of disruption or other rule violations when I'm only attempting to explain my opinion on things, as well as cases where Widefox abuses Wikipedia policies to force other editors to conform with their view on issues:

• [108]
• [109]
• [110] Calls Wumbolo's good faith AFD a disruption while canvassing another editor to this ANI thread
• [111]: Widefox calls me "comic relief", an direct personal attack that I ignored until now.
• [112]: Accused me of disruption for arguing xmonad is a product, claiming that there's a consensus that non-commercial software isn't a product (there is no such consensus that I'm aware of). Another diff where I'm being "disruptive" for having the audacity to cite WP:PRODUCT for a FOSS software [113]
• [114]: Accused me of adminshopping (??) despite the fact that Widefox brought me into ANI in the first place
• This ANI thread, where Widefox initially brought me here for just mentioning systemic bias, and finally admitted that they didn't have good cause to bring me here.
• [115] Calls Wumbolo disruptive here
• [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] Constantly abusing "Consensus" to shut opposing viewpoints down. Consensus is about discussing and coming to a conclusion together, not about how two editors think one thing and only one editor thinks another, and therefore the two editors are right. Widefox repeatedly uses this flawed definition of consensus to accuse others of being disruptive by going against "consensus".
• [121]: Another type of abusing "consensus": apparently, an unclosed AFD already has a "consensus" that I'm against.
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yesod_(web_framework) Another AFD where Widefox hounded me, and then cites speedy keep criterion "The nominator did not even read the article". Not only is that form of "Speedy Keep" vote extremely rude, it's obvious that Widefox has a grudge against me, Calling me incompetent for "missing" a book that I mentioned in the initial AFD! It's kind of weird to cite that speedy keep criterion when you didn't even read the nom [122]. The anger in this response shows that Widefox is unwilling to believe that editors who do things they disagree with can act in good faith, and have a strong distrust of the AFD process, feeling the need to shame the nominator as incompetent in order to get their point across. This also shows that Widefox genuinely believes I'm engaged in some sort of anti-Haskell campaign; apparently, any time I touch anything related to Haskell, I'm being "disruptive".
• This diff shows how possessive Widefox is with these articles[123]. Apparently, me trying to change a section heading to a more fitting title ("Background", since the section described the history and background of the software) is me trying to make the software less notable? Since when is notability determined by section headings? Widefox just cannot stand anything I do, and I'm really confused as to why even such non-contentious edits are made into a big deal by them.
• Accusation of edit warring [124] in an AFD, despite the fact that I haven't reverted any of Widefox's edits. Changes Speedy Keep criterion to accuse me of being disruptive.
• [125] Widefox still thinks I'm Wumbolo, apparently. None of my AFDs have been closed for lack of WP:BEFORE, so I have no idea why Widefox is lying about me in unrelated AFDs.
• [126] evidence that Widefox believes the xmonad AFD is a WP:BATTLEGROUND where I'm determined to win, despite the fact that I had stated I wanted to change my vote just a few hours ago [127], and apparently I'm nominating another Haskell related article "in revenge". Really?
• [128] Widefox continues to be extremely condescending, putting back a speedy keep for "not reading the article", despite the fact that I said that I hadn't read the external links section, and had in fact listed the book as a source. This is unnecessarily hostile. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 07:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Repeated exaggeration of issues in an attempt to assassinate my character, claiming that I've made "bad mass noms" in reference to two closely related AFD noms today. Two AFDs and removing two sections of frivolous code examples is a systematic attempt to undermine Haskell articles on Wikipedia, according to Widefox. This kind of apocalyptic rhetoric at every turn is exhausting.
• Conspiratorial thinking: believing they're the sole guardian of software articles against the "deletion cult" [129], any action taken against them is "baiting", "provocation", or a sly attempt to undermine them. No, I'm not trying to undermine you or get you banned from Wikipedia. I'm literally just trying to get you to stop tearing my head off for doing simple things like changing a section heading.
• I will add more as time allows, but Widefox's toxic attitude can be seen above in this ANI thread, where they aggressively push for a ban against Wumbolo for having the audacity to disagree with them on AFDs.

This user is incorrigibly mean and hostile, to both me and User:Wumbolo. I'm requesting an indefinite, one way IBAN so that Widefox can no longer interact with me and intimidate me out of the encyclopedia. I've sat here and taken every bit of their invective and snide remarks without saying anything, but I'm done doing that. I don't want any other users to suffer the way I have. I am tired, alone, and defeated. I don't know why Widefox can't deal with this in a civil manner like everyone else in this thread has, without constant hounding of other editors and slander over the course of normal editing. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 03:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

A quick look at those diffs make me say - is it entirely consistent here in a thread at ANI about disruption by FenixFeather (and other editors like Wumbolo who are disruptively trying to raise the bar and nomming WP:NPRODUCT i.e. WP:NORG for FOSS software - i.e. no company, no product being sold), that diffs showing allegations of disruption of FenixFeather are shown.) FenixFeather should read WP:HA#NOT ...merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. There are already diffs proving all of those points above, including me just saying to continue to resolve on FenixFeather's talk, which is de-escalation. This is only brought here as FenixFeather is getting frustrated and WP:ADMINSHOP (and multiple talk, per above), and that seems to be mainly due to failing to convince anyone at several AfDs, getting reverted by two editors (already above). This is just an attempted WP:Boomerang - simply FenixFeather is being reverted and challenged by more than three editors. This is the reason I brought FenixFeather here due to BATTLEGROUND and uncivil trying to force delete at AfD disruption.

That FenixFeather doesn't look at the car crash of these AfDs and stop, I don't know. I've added 50-100 sources to articles to rescue them with this mass deletion attempt, when they should all have been found at BEFORE by the noms. FenixFeather seems to be now getting WP:POINTy, by systematically AfDing [130] [131] and blanking [132] [133] Haskell articles today after disruptive wikilaywering at clash of this deletion cult at a sensitive but nurtured now xmonad crashsite Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xmonad (3rd nomination). I've already FenixFeather them what they have against Haskell. Singling out me, just because I agree with consensus and have done the most to find sources and rescue and point out bogus, inconsistent and AGF alegations, when several editors are all saying the same thing at the AfDs. Are they all to be brought here too, as there's complete consensus at the AfDs. Widefox; talk 04:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I am singling you out because you're the only one who has flown off the hook as a result of this. Other editors I've had a very pleasant time interacting with, and haven't constantly called me disruptive or attacked me, or tried to use false consensuses against me and others. Take a good long look at yourself. You're the only one who has been doing this. Nobody else has felt the need to call me disruptive at every turn. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 04:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

sigh, you're attempting to single me out as I've found the most sources, been the most active in the clear consensus which you're going against at mass AfDs, and brought you here when you started calling another editor "dick move" etc. Why do you hate Haskell? (mass nomming and blanking Haskell articles - diffs above + comments + accusing everyone of being Haskell fans - diffs on request) and what's with using WP:NCOMPANY at all these AfDs when there's no company?! Repeating these AfDs without BEFORE, AfD after AfD after being challenged by several editors will eventually lead to fatigue (there's still more editors coming here complaining about AfD overload, but it still hasn't stopped - 2, 3 today?) and questions of bad faith by the community. This "take me to ANI" provocation (section above) and this section is clearly a pattern of disruption. "flown off the hook" - as I've said repeatedly - provide diffs for any accusation else it will be ignored! See WP:ANI "diff". I can provide diffs for what other editors have said about you. It seems to be a WP:LISTEN issue. Widefox; talk 04:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Widefox needs to drop the trollish, mocking tone. Not to mention the misuse of speedy keep criteria: a deletion argument you disagree with is still an argument; and it is clear that FenixFeather has read the article. Stop trying to wind them up with this nonsense. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • All (both) participants at the AfD agree it's a Speedy Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yesod (web framework). It highlights the jeapardy of these AfDs - nomming articles which don't have enough sources in them is incorrect per policy WP:NEXIST / WP:BEFORE and the first participants at the AfDs have !voted Delete until it's clear that the nom is way off, and consistently, en mass. I have struck WP:SKCRIT#3 to de-escalate, but I stand by Speedy or Strong Keep
    • This is entirely BOOMERANG for FenixFeather - FenixFeather started interaction with "dick move" (diff above, continued with Wumbolo's AFDs attract shitty keep votes from editors who use this software ... one of the more blatant examples of systemic bias, because they're biased in favor of these free software articles. ...editors who aren't WP:INVOLVED with free software may end up being the best judges, "Problem is, other editors who are Linux people or whatever immediately get offended that their favorite little piece of free software or whatever is getting nominated for deletion, and then vote Speedy Keep with a shitty rationale...crappy software articles...REALLY terrible mindset, and shame on the person who brought this to ANI. Just because we're not all worshippers of free software doesn't mean you need to bring people to ANI.") and I have not sunk to that tone or WP:POVFIGHTER [134] once, no, and these two sections here baiting at ANI. Why is FenixFeather persisting with more AfDs? (tail-end of mass AfDs against consensus), ongoing AfDs of open source articles (today working through Haskell articles) failing WP:NEXIST/WP:BEFORE (and blanking) forcing sources to be found en mass.
  • I agree to tone it down and continue to de-escalate (diffs above I was doing), this is fatigue at ongoing mass AfDs adding over 100 sources to WP:RESCUE notable articles (see editor above saying AfD is breaking down). This is entirely good faith. Neither is WP:HARRASS per WP:HA#NOT (as quoted above). For context, see diffs above, what other editors are saying at the AfDs, and the AfDs some of which have been closed SPEEDY/SNOW/WP:SKCRIT#3 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X window manager. Widefox; talk 11:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • The first diff in the list is not even me, it is FenixFeather Are you reading what you're writing? You're literally waxing pedantic .... FenixFeather's interaction started with "dick move" aimed at two editors, and they are getting more frustrated as consensus is against them, two editors have restored removed sources while at AfD for lack of sources removed 1 RS, 1 primary by FenixFeather [135] restored by Widefox, repeat removed by FenixFeather reworded/added back by Djm-leighpark (and there's talk page by me to try to discuss this edit warring by FenixFeather) sometimes AfD talk refactoring edit warring restored by multiple editors. (diffs above, or ask and I'll add) Widefox; talk 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I included the first diff because you accuse me of being disruptive in the edit summary for no reason. I'll admit that I included unnecessary amounts of sass in my commentary, but that's nothing compared to the constant, toxic assault on my character. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@FenixFeather : You said I am tired, alone, and defeated .. I hate to say it but that is a sign of WP:WIKISTRESS. If one steps back it is probably not the best time to do content blanking and AfD raising ... those can nearly always wait if necessary. Now because my neutrality here can be quite reasonably be questioned I'm not the best person to suggest. But I feel a way needs to be found to de-escalate and chill. If it has to go to sanctions a no-fault two-way WP:IBAN(s) would appear to be the right way to go (I'm not actually proposing that at this moment) and it doesn't particularly censor anybody though they have to be most considered and careful with contributions. Incidentally one bit tip I got from an admin when I first ended up at a DRV discussion was don't reply to every post someone makes ... I guess that means ideally try to aim to do one or perhaps two succinct concise reply in each 168 hour discussion. Closing admins should be able to sift the consensus readily in most cases and account for any last minute replies at the end of the 168 hour stint (obviously non-admin closures can be a little more variable but there's always the option to question them or at worst DRV). Though I seem not to agree with you quite a lot I have at times noted very good work from you and have learned things from you. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (NB: posted this without noticing Reyk's reply above ... its best if I best no further at the moment) Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Thanks and I appreciate the advice. The last time I was here I quit Wikipedia for a whole year because of how stressful it was, and yes, you're right, there's no urgent need to do AFDs right now, especially since it seems like Widefox is studiously guarding any remotely software related AFDs. After multiple attempts to reach out and de-escalate, I thought things had cooled down enough for me to proceed as normal. I was wrong. As such, I don't believe this is a "both sides are to blame" situation. Widefox has continually hounded and harassed both me and Wumbolo to the breaking point. Nevertheless, I do want to thank you for remaining levelheaded and pleasant to interact with, even during potentially contentious AFDs such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FoxyTunes. I really appreciate your way of editing and your withdrawal of your request for sanctions against Wumbolo. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 08:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The driver is "proceed as normal (for me and Wumbolo)" actually means resume deleting against an overwhelming consensus. Shooting a messenger won't change that. (I cannot comment on Djm-leighpark's wise words, as I do not wish to give you the impression I'm suggesting you stop editing, just start WP:LISTENing) Widefox; talk 14:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:NSOFTWARE

WP:NSOFTWARE essay. We have no subject-specific notability guideline. I flag this up as a weakness that may be a good faith reason underneath these mass deletions - why editors may be erroneously nomming Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) "WP:NPRODUCT" for software that would not be termed a "product" (no company or organisation, no product to sell, no service to sell even). (It's a conflation of software as a creative work vs software product). Apart from outdated as marked, it's also out of line with our content e.g. software is not defined as a product (only commercial software section uses the term). The essay has now turned up at an AfD. I note that the "product" aspect was recently fixed (de-conflated) in the essay [136] but reverted [137]. I can't fix it given the above, so note it here. Widefox; talk 16:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not for content disputes. The appropriate forum is the talk page of that notability guideline. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you also want a special notability guideline for puppies? They aren't products, but can be sold. How about a special notability guideline for sharp objects? Because sharp rocks aren't products, but knives are sold commercially. wumbolo ^^^ 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup, good faith gets ridiculed. I won't be editing any of these until this is closed here, or pursue any further as WP:DEADHORSE so it can be closed from my side. Widefox; talk 17:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again an assumption of a lack of AGF. Now you don't want to "pursue any further" even though you started this section, so you're the one doing the WP:DEADHORSE thing. wumbolo ^^^ 17:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 block of User:Joel David 99

Hi. I would like to request the admins to block User:Joel David 99 for their WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Vandalism inspite of various warnings. I am citing some proofs for the same.

• FC Goa, Mumbai City FC and related articles - According to guidelines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs, the notable players section if present must have a criteria for inclusion. Although it is a guideline, there is no reason why it should be bypassed in this case. As of this revision, there was a maintainance tag attached to the notable players section in FC Goa article. Even though in this revision a criteria was given, the user has constantly reverting the edits without any explanation. In this revision, the user even wrote that Czechoslovakia and Catalonia are present countries. In this revision, the user added players who do not fit the criteria. Even though I tried to contact the user in their talk page twice (here and here), the user simply deleted the messages without any reply. The user has shown the same attitude in Mumbai City FC article. The user removed the criteria in this revision. In this revision, the player altered the criteria but did not remove the players who did not fulfill the criteria. In the Chennaiyin FC and FC Pune City articles, the user has done same edits (here, here, here). In the ATK article also, the user did something same (and even claimed that Galicia is a separate country).
• In this revision, User:Nzd gave the user a final warning about the above mentioned matter. But still, the user did not communicate with other users for guidance and instead continued the same mess in here, here and here.
• Previously also the user received warnings (here), but didnt introspect and instead deleted the messages.

RRD (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Royroydeb for bringing this here. This user has some clear WP:IDHT and WP:COMMUNICATE issues. Despite my efforts,[138][139] they have continued to ignore talk page messages and warnings (since blanked). I would have brought this here myself as I don't think there's much more that can be done without admin intervention. Nzd (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note: Whether he is having issues with edit warring, communicating, or whatever, I see no evidence he is trying to harm Wikipedia. Because of that, when you claim that someone is vandalizing Wikipedia, but where they are editing in Good Faith (that is, they are trying to improve Wikipedia for whatever their own idea of improvement is) that goes bad. Please avoid calling things vandalism that are not. If he needs a block for another reason, explain that reason, but avoid clouding the discussion by accusing him of doing things he's not doing. WP:AGF applies even when someone is being disruptive. --Jayron32 18:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Fair point, and that's probably my fault as I had used the uw-vandalism4 template for the final warning. I think this was a misclick as I had used uw-disruptive templates for previous warnings. I'd offer to strike but they've already blanked the page (@Royroydeb: perhaps you could strike the vandalism bit to prevent muddying the waters here?) Nzd (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

As a follow-up, I see that more recent edits to some of the pages have changed the criteria rather than removing the text completely, so hopefully this might be the start of some kind of engagement. I'll try to reach out to the editor again as I'm not sure I agree with that wording, and hopefully that can be resolved through communication. From my own point of view, if any issues can be resolved without blocks, that'd be preferable. Nzd (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing to the point that the editor's edits cannot be considered vandalism. But the edits are highly disruptive as they "disrupts progress toward improving an article". Even after talk page messages and warnings and reverts (with explanation), the editor is continuing with the same type of edits (Here, here and here]). The editor continues to add players in notable players section who does not fit the criteria or removes the criteria without any explanation. Even in the this revision, the user wrongly writes that Dudu Omagbemi played 100 matches for his nation without any citation. I am of the opinion that the user's edits even after explanations in edit histories and talk pages indicate that they are intentional. RRD (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User: MRAU-vip

Her/his edit summary reverting my edit:

First you mentioned a wiki page that has nothing to do with bigbang's official page. 2: you deleted a STRONG Reliable From New York Press Source. 3: all BIGBANG sales are certified and we have the document ready, 4: if you deleted again you will be in serious problem, i hope to don't see this happen again

Those exactly points mentioned were discussed on the Talk pages I cited on my edit summary. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You already deleted a reliable source from bigbang's page, and that Best Selling Music Artist is OR So we don't need your opinion to include a reliable evidence in bigbang's page i'm very tired talking about this subject its been more than a year and nobody want to listen, i will say it the last time you don't believe they sold that much ? then its your problem don't downgrade a somebody's achievement just because you think that can't do it, their last album alone sold 40 million records in 2016 and again you can go calculate their sales, you can find them in their discography instead of wasting my effort to make contributions in wikipedia go and do something good, and sorry when said you will be in serious problem i didn't mean something bad but anyway sorry again, but that doesn't mean that you should delete a reliable source from the page because it didn't match another OR page. #MRAU 06:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRAU-vip (talk • contribs)

I'd support a topic ban from music related articles. MRAU seems to have a very combative attitude towards these. --Tarage (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Also I went ahead and reverted that revert. Threats are going to get you nowhere. --Tarage (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

MRAU-vip - You need to collaborate and discuss the issues with Cornerstonepicker peacefully and work things out. I understand your frustration, but your responses toward Cornerstonepicker are unnecessarily hostile and combative and it's not going to make anything easier or help either one of you out. Please make sure that your messages and responses toward other editors reflect a civil, respectful, and openly collaborative tone at all times. Shouting at someone, condescending and hostile words and remarks, and making threats toward other editors (such as what you've been doing both on the article as well as here) is not acceptable and won't resolve the situation. I will acknowledge your apology for the threat you made toward Cornerstonepicker; thank you for apologizing for that. Had you not had done so, you probably would have been blocked from editing. Making any kind of threats like these toward other editors is an extremely serious violation of policy and in no circumstances are they tolerated or have a place here. Please do not make any sort of threats like this again. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeated BLP-violations and edit-warring by SPA-account

A new account, Perspex03, is adding a lot of dubious and potentially defamatory material. The user seems to be a SPA-account devoted to the White genocide conspiracy theory. As part of their campaign, they accuse a number of living, high-profiled individuals of being racist conspiracy theorists. Living people targeted include the leader of the main French centre-right party [140], the Hungarian PM [141], a French archbishop [142] etc. The sources used are sometimes dubious (blogs etc.), or reliable sources but not using the terms conspiracy theory. I reverted some of the more potentially defamatory material, but Perspex03 reinserted it [143]. In short, problems include:
- Repeated WP:BLP-violations.
- Edit warring by ignoring WP:BRD.
- POV-pushing; 'conspiracy theory' is a strong word, and Perspex03 uses it much more than any of the sources.
I admit I question whether Perspex03 is here for the right reasons. The user seems devoted to "exposing" people whom Perspex has decided are racist conspiracy theorists. Giving that that is a very serious accusation, and Perpex03 almost exclusive target living people, this is very problematic. Jeppiz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand how this works. The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is a... conspiracy theory. Reliable sources say "it's a conspiracy theory". An example of a conspiracy theory is [[The Great Replacement conspiracy theory]. Those notable people that reliable sources show are "evoking 'the Great Replacement'" (which is a conspiracy theory), are listed as promoting, supporting or evoking... a conspiracy theory. Please explain what The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is, if not a conspiracy theory? What is it? Perspex03 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Perspex03, it might be wise for a user who joined last month not to try to teach users who have been here almost ten years how WP works. Your argument is completely wrong. If you claim that something is a "conspiracy theory", it's your task to show it. Neither I nor anyone else needs to prove that something is not what you claim (see "Russell's teapot"). What you are doing, is to:

• First claim that there is a "conspiracy theory"
• Next accuse people of supporting it, based on articles you think support it. But unless those articles explicitly uses the words "conspiracy theory", it's just your defamatory claims, nothing else.

Thank you, though, for demonstrating my point in your reply. You are not here to contribute to Wikipedia in a neutral manner, you are here to use it as a political soap box. Jeppiz (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, you may need to get over yourself Jeppiz. You've got this one wrong, and that's ok, (really!). I've also been responsible for fleshing out the 'Critics' sections of white genocide conspiracy theory, and have received several 'thanks' from established editors for doing so. What you seem to be missing is that The Great Replacement conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory; (Here, why don't you have a read of the French version: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_remplacement). It has already been well established that it is a conspiracy theory. So, literally, I need to prove nothing. I am not claiming it is a conspiracy theory; reliable sources already prove it is a conspiracy theory. Next, I am not accusing "people of supporting it", I'm simply portraying what several reliable sources convey regarding the "Great Replacement" (a term evidently interchangable with The Great Replacement conspiracy theory, as, again, what is the Great Replacement, if not a conspiracy theory?) As to insinuating I'm defaming people, or using a political soap box, kindly retract that statement, or provide some actual evidence. Thank you. Perspex03 (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Much of what you write is about content, that's not for ANI. What is of concern for ANI is that you're edit warring and making WP:BLP violations. Regardless of whether you believe you're right or wrong, you should not edit war. You've been warned several times already by different users. And no!; finding some source (of whatever quality) saying that a living person has expressed concern about immigration is not sufficient for writing on Wikipedia that living persons support something you call a conspiracy theory. The fact that you believe that to be the case is the very problem here. Hence my comments about your BLP-violation and hence this ANI report. Jeppiz (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Understand you Jeppiz, but, again, it's not me saying it's a conspiracy theory, is it? It is a conspiracy theory. Not acknowledging the fact that it is a proven conspiracy theory is problematic because it's leading you incorrectly to the conclusion that I'm making BLP violations, whereas I'm simply conveying the details provided in RS. I agree on edit warring, but obviously these warnings are weeks apart and hardly pertinent to this actual issue. Anyway, thanks. Perspex03 (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

To put it in as simple terms as I can; in the case of each individual discussed, do you have a reliable source ('reliable source' by Wikipedia's definition, not yours, and virtually none of the purported 'sources' here qualify) that explicitly states that that person is a believer in a conspiracy theory? If you don't, it doesn't go in. This is a core Wikipedia principle, and not up for discussion or negotiation; if you're willing to abide by it, great, if you're not, you're not welcome to edit at Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 21:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

So, if a reliable source says "John Smith claimed that the moon landings were faked, stating on his podcast "God, who believes in the moon landings anyway? I mean, really, who would believe that rubbish? It never happened! I call it a fake!" - Reliable source. John Smith is not eligible to be listed as an advocate/supporter/believer/promoter of moon landing conspiracy theories? Or as a notable person, with a Wikipedia page, be listed in Category:Moon landing conspiracy theorists, because the reliable source doesn't explicitly mention the words "conspiracy theory", even though it's explictly talking about a conspiracy theory? Think you may be off base here. Perspex03 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

False analogy. The moon landings either happened or didn't (they did), two mutually exclusive options with no grey zone. That immigration has changed the demographics of some countries and municipalities is a fact, so there is a considerable grey zone between whether just stating a demographic fact ("The proportion of white British has declined in every census for the the past 60 years"), expressing an opinion that people may like or dislike ("The continued decline of the proportion of White British worries me"), or believing there is a conspiracy behind it ("There is a secret program to reduce the White British population"). What you are doing is to conflate these, so that anyone who says anything that you interpret as coinciding with a conspiracy theory you then claim is a believer in the conspiracy theory. So yes, Iridescent is perfectly right to say that unless a good, reliable source (not any blog or similar) explicitly says that someone believes in a conspiracy theory, you are not allowed to claim it. If you don't grasp this, Wikipedia is not for you. Jeppiz (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Look I'm an outside editor, totally uninvolved in this content dispute just trying to figure out exactly what is happening. I'm starting with The Great Replacement conspiracy theory the whole idea that is being called a "conspiracy theory" and see if there are RS for that, and then we can focus on if any specific individuals are claimed to hold such views by RS. As far as I can see, there are three sources cited for the claim that this is a "conspiracy theory":

1. La Croix does say it is a conspiracy theory (specifically a "théorie de type conspirationniste") [144]. Is La Croix a RS? Looks like it is a general interest Roman Catholic newspaper. I don't see any history of it having been known for falsely reporting things in the past. Is there a reason you do not believe this is a RS Jeppiz?
2. Agora Vox also says it is a conspiracy theory, but it appears to me to be more like a blog than a newspaper with some 40,000 volunteer writers, it doesn't have a traditional editorial board, instead the editorial board is all those who have published at least four articles with them. I would not say this qualifies as a RS.
3. The Sunday Times is also cited, however it seems if it does reference it, it is behind a paywall, so I haven't reviewed it. The Sunday Times does appear to be a RS to me (if it does say that). Have you been able to view the entire unpaywalled article Jeppiz?

Jeppiz, can you please link to the specific revert edits that violate WP:3RR, if any exist? Or are you claiming that this is edit warring without violating 3RR? I do see some reverts by him, but that alone wouldn't qualify as edit warring. What makes you think this is edit warring? -Obsidi (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the Grand Replacement is a conspiracy theory; the issue is that Perspex is claiming that any public figure who has ever expressed any sentiment along the lines of "immigration is altering my country's culture and I don't approve" is subscribing to the specific theory that there is a coordinated effort to encourage immigration to [insert country name] to displace the indigenous population. ‑ Iridescent 22:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seeing that now that I am looking at the edits concerning the specific people who are said to endorse this theory. Too much WP:SYNTH going on for those edits. -Obsidi (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Can an admin please deal with this? (probably with blocks?) power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White genocide conspiracy theory. This could get ugly very quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

And I've pulled that AfD, and made massive removals to the article (invoking WP:BLP) after doing so. I still feel that substantially all of the revision history of that page should be revdel'd, but we'll have something at this title, so no need for the AfD bureaucracy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted a bunch of Perspex's additions to other pages where they add WP:UNDUE amounts of information about "white genocide" to articles. I'll wait for them to respond before calling for a WP:NOTHERE block, but they're very close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hopefully, this admin has already dealt with it. Either Perspex genuinely didn't understand WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH—which isn't unusual—and is now going to comply; or, Perspex is going to carry on inserting libellous statements to blogs, The Great Replacement conspiracy theory will remain sourced to such dubious sources as Jihad Watch, Zero Hedge and Christian Today, Perspex will be summarily blocked, and I'll rollback and revdel the relevant parts of their edit history. Because it's a legal issue, libel is an area in which WP:IAR doesn't apply. ‑ Iridescent 22:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Are we still waiting for them to respond? Did you send them a harshly worded email or something? (I don't see anything on wiki). I'm just trying to understand what the result of the admin action for this was. -Obsidi (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The admin action is making Perspex aware of the issues around sourcing and that they need to comply with Wikipedia's rules. This isn't WP:Requests for retribution; not everything needs to be dealt with by means of blocks and bans. Have there been any further problematic edits since? ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article is currently fully protected. (which was requested by me) I've been watching the editor since they begun their additions. It's extremely likely that they have not familiarized themself with the relevant policies and guidelines, but the edit warring by other users far exceeds the edit warring by this user. Also, when I place a maintenance tag in one of the sections edited by the user, they are quick to attempt to solve the problem(s). I don't see any problem with being a SPA in this situation, when the editor clearly does their best to improve the article. I might support something like a 1RR restriction on the article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I fully protected "white genocide conspiracy theory" for one week. Most recent talk page thread for the article. Airplaneman ✈ 14:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Constant personal attacks, despite multiple warnings

User Cambridge Optic ("CO") continues to claim that I am a "racist" (a claim that I have actually no idea on where it comes from, because never have we touched a topic like this?) and, clearly, tries to "smear" my "editor image" with transphobic comments (that I once even redacted). They continnue to "assume" the wrong pronoun for myself, as well, though I am unsure whether that is relevant on Wikipedia (I hope it is). Czar has repeatedly called for CO to change their attitude, though, mostly in regards to the article, and so have I and Nøkkenbuer. This is my first request for arbitration, so please bear with me, if I forget to do something. Please let me know, if so, so I can change it afterwards! Also, all of this occurred on Talk:Tendency of the rate of profit to fall. A selection of what has been said about me personally in multiple responses:

"That guy JulkaK (a racist, who now proudly styles himself as a communist hick transsexual from Austria)(...)" - 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"(...)The edits did not meet with JulkaK's approval, because they were contrary to his own political sympathies, his own biases, and his own favourite article flavours. Regarding himself as the best judge of all things, he thought he would project his own bias on me, and call me "biased" in my edits.(...)" - 01:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"(...)but all I get for my efforts in wikiland, is scorn; ridicule; and accusations from dabblers and Marxist thugs(...)" - 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

"(...)I am not some stinky Marxist dork trying to impress the world with his bad breath and his collection of anal beads.(...)" (This is the comment that I have redacted, though it should be displayed here, I think) - 21:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Since, while I personally very much disagree with a lot of the edits of CO on Tendency of the rate of profit to fall, as evidenced by my responses on the corresponding talk page, I do actually value the amount of work they have put into it. Nonetheless, my request entails mostly to force CO to use a more respectful language, refrain from personal attacks and, though not subject of what I wrote above, but I ought to mention it as well, their, in my opinion, evasive, deflecting and talking-it-to-death technique when responding to criticism.

Thanks in advance. JulkaK (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I would concur that those comments are over-the-top violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and would urge @Cambridge Optic: to focus on content and not to further comment on any users if he cannot control himself to more civil levels of discourse. --Jayron32 02:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cambridge Optic: Re-ping for Jayron32. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I have blocked Cambridge Optic for 72 hours for these vile personal attacks. If this conduct resumes, the next block will be much longer, if I have anything to say about it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen328. I'm wondering if that whole talk page section should just be revdeleted: these are BLP violations. But as you can guess, it's a bit late for me-- Drmies (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

My hesitation there is that the offensive comments are mixed into a very lengthy conversation about improving the article among several editors. I readily admit that my revdel skills are weak. If any administrator wants to revdel any parts of that conversation, I will support that. Get some sleep, Drmies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I've redacted and rev-deleted the personal attacks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Boing! thank you--that's what I was too tired for last night. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! — JulkaK (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I will briefly (for me) provide my thoughts. I had not checked the talk page since these recent developments and before their revisions were deleted (and I trust them to have been deleted on very good cause, given the above admins are among the best), so I am ignorant of those redacted portions. From what I did notice before, during, and after my brief involvement was already uncivil behavior from CO, however, and I honestly anticipated it would come to this one way or another. Hopefully, this block will lead to better behavior, especially since I remain convinced that CO can be a very powerful asset to the project. Sadly, hope is the greatest confidence I have for that to pass.

As I also noted in the talk page discussion, I have been silently noticing CO's edits since they first joined Wikipedia due to them extensively editing articles in my watchlist. I have shared concerns about their edits similar to what JulkaK and others have expressed, including about their article contributions. Despite my (probably shambolic) attempts at de-escalating the situation and acknowledging CO's prolific work, CO seems to have remained uncooperative and the situation has continued to deteriorate.

For the record, other relevant talk page discussions include here (permanent link) and here (permanent link). Thank you, JulkaK, for submitting this report. No one should be subjected to such abuse, especially not on Wikipedia. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 01:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC); edited to add "admins" at 01:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Spam ANI notice issue

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

---

• IanDBeacon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The user spam ani notice by adding {{subst:ani-notice}} at these User page 8 hours ago. But there is no ani threat about these user at that time. See also complaint on User talk:Bbb23#User:IanDBeacon and especially on User:Flix11 Hhkohh (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 repeatedly reverting AN3 report

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

---

Special:Contributions/109.154.46.64 self-explanatory. Note that I haven't notified the IP that he's been reported here; I did notify him that he'd been reported at AN3, and you can see the reaction. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 12:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Eaterjolly

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

---

Me and Beeblebrox are dealing with this user's refusal to back down from a proposal that was closed as WP:SNOW. I'm taking this here as the user in question is threatening to make a request for arbitration (though that would likely not succeed if they followed through with that threat) despite being told his proposal will not succeed and that his continued defiance of that fact is disruptive.

See WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 153#Wikipedia, a quatertiary source. (sic), and the editing history of Village pump (proposals), as well as User talk:Eaterjolly.

Kirbanzo (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Fixed link to VPR ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Very strong language here.

My "threat" really had more to do with ~if I got blocked for restoring my proposal~.

My "defiance" really had more to do with the proposal getting closed within 12 hours without any substantive comments.

If someone demonstrates proposals without a substantive response within half a day, typically get closed, then I will apologize, sincerely.

Eaterjolly (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• I would just link WP:PEREN 1.6, 1.7 and WP:NOTFORUM and move on. There should be no more second being wasted on this. Alex Shih (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the closing of the VP thread. I agree that there was a 0% chance of success. If Eaterjolly wants to go to ArbCom, let him. He'll look silly.

I'm more concerned with seeing Kirbanzo (who I've never bumped into before yesterday) acting needlessly aggressive and self-important for the second time in two days. I see a lot of vandal fighters go thru this phase, and I'm really hoping it passes quickly. Someone older and wiser could have explained this to Eaterjolly much better, and saved some hassle. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe I overdid it, and I apologize. I'll withdraw. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 MorbidStories

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

---

• MorbidStories (talk · contribs)

Behavioral and competence issues, per [145] and [146]. After vandalizing an article, the whole 'scumbag filth' thing doesn't work real well. 2601:188:180:1481:D0B2:2100:B473:6B99 (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• More [147]; [148]. 2601:188:180:1481:D0B2:2100:B473:6B99 (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend that you and your ilk read this article carefully before going on a crusade against harmless and helpful editors. I have created and improved hundreds of articles. I erred on one and find myself being brought to the jobsworths' version of the headmaster's study. --MorbidStories (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I would like to draw attention to a disruptive and bullying editor: 2601:188:180:1481:D0B2:2100:B473:6B99

They appear to have spent the day looking back at all my constructive edits and have arbitrarily reverted several of them. They also accused me of vandalism when I simply mistook a person's identity for another person with the same name.

It is very creepy that they are "deep searching" sometimes quite old edits and singling me out. If this was in the real world, this could constitute harassment/stalking.

This kind of user is what sometimes makes Wikipedia a highly unpleasant, aggressive and intimidating place for well-meaning editors.

Thank you for your consideration.

--MorbidStories (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation of this edit and how on earth you thought a professional footballer could have anything to do with the JFK assassination fifteen years before he was born. For this and this, the IP is right - per WP:BLPPRIMARY "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." And for this edit, what makes 101greatgoals.com a reliable source for a biography of a living person? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Okay, some of these diffs are among the worst BLP edits I’ve seen (I mean, my god, you said someone did something before they were born.) MorbidStories, I’ve alerted you to special rules we have in place for dealing with living people. If these sort of edits continue going forward, you’ll likely be topic banned or blocked (and I have no objection to another admin blocking now due to competence issues regarding living persons, I’m just willing to give one last chance.) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• MorbidStories, a few comments. First of all I blocked you temporarily for that "scumbag filth" comment. I don't know how you thought that would ever be an OK thing to say here: this isn't the internet, and those comments are indeed "unpleasant, aggressive and intimidating". Second, you are lucky that Ritchie and Tony responded here first, because I would have seriously considered an indefinite BLP block for the sourcing and, given the Clint Hill edit, for blatant incompetence. Third, -- be happy I don't have a third right now. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: this edit [149], yes, supported by a reliable source. But are we a gossip sheet? 2601:188:180:1481:D0B2:2100:B473:6B99 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Reddogsix

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

---

• Reddogsix (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please, remove the page mover privilege over https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/Reddogsix&offset=20180924&limit=2 (and similar disruption in the past) according to WP:Page mover #Criteria for revocation, p. 3. The user was clearly warned not to suppress redirects for such likely titles. Note that for Sidney Goldstein (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) a confused editor created the article (not redirect!) anew. Thanks for attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Ping There'sNoTime who granted the perm Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:39, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at the top of this page or the edit notice when you posted, you'll see that you are supposed to notify people when you open an ANI thread about them. Natureium (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at Reddogsix's talk page, you'll see that Incnis Mrsi did notify them, one minute after posting here (45 minutes before your post). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure removing the permission is necessary, if that was the only communication you had about it. It may just be a misunderstanding, rather than ignoring you, and this doesn't seem like an earth-shattering mistake. @Reddogsix:, all of those page moves that Incnis Mrsi listed on your talk page should have been done with a redirect, not with redirect suppressed. If you don't understand why, feel free to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
• Considering the number of CSDs of Reddogsix which have been declined even recently, they really should review the CSD criteria, which will be helpful here, since redirects are only supposed to be suppressed when a CSD criterion applies - and it is rare when they do in regards to redirects left after page moves Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If their CSDs are getting rejected frequently too, that's a problem, but I've run out of time to look at this for a few hours at least. Other admins? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
    • As of this revision, there's thirteen declines from SoWhy in the past three months; certainly they do a lot of CSDs, but WP:A7ing a school recently with so much CSD experience seems rather beyond the pale. I first noticed their CSDs when they CSDed a knight Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

      (pinged) I can say from experience that this is indeed a user I will be skeptical about when seeing they tagged the article. According to my log, he is one of those I have to decline the most often, with almost 50 declines just by me, ranging back from this in May 17 to this last month. Not all are clear mistakes but many are articles with clear indicators or claims of significance. I haven't had time to assess whether this is a widespread problem or just them and me having different interpretations. Regards SoWhy 20:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

      • • @SoWhy - How many of those reversed CSDs have been deleted via AfD? Perhaps that is a better indicator of the true status. @Floquenbeam - I have no issue revisiting my redirection of articles and I have had other communication with Incnis Mrsi; however, not about the redirection concern. He was perturbed with me for nominating one of two images for deletion for copyright issues. While I welcome review of any of my actions, I am feeling a bit stalked by Incnis Mrsi. reddogsix (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

          Nevermind that somewhere around half the articles SoWhy declined CSD on are still blue links/articles, How many of those reversed CSDs have been deleted via AfD? is not the standard; articles have to meet the strict CSD standards not merely be non-notable, which I hope doesn't need explaining to someone with hundreds of CSDs.

          Also, do you understand the issue with your suppression of those redirects? I've already pointed to the relevant guideline on when suppression of redirects is appropriate, WP:PMRC Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

          • Actually there are more in the thousands of articles, not hundreds. No, it does not and yes I do. reddogsix (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have seen reddogsix active on NPP for years, and I do decline his speedies or !vote keep at his AfDs, but I think he does everything in good faith. His AfD stats show over 85% matching consensus, so I think if there's a problem, it's pretty isolated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Has this wikipedia such shortage of people able to revert page move vandalism and tag rubbish for speedy deletion to employ WP:CIR-problematic people is this rôle? Look how Reddogsix tagged for speedy a file the second time in two days, after their {{copyvio}} has been declined on the ground that the source is licensed freely. IMHO you will spend more effort to educate ’m rather than can gain from his/her job. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, given the above evidence I have removed reddogsix's page mover rights per WP:PMRR point 3 "The editor demonstrated a pattern of using the permission to suppress redirects that would not have been eligible for one of the criteria for speedy deletion." Some of the moves are marginal cases, but doing a de facto speedy delete on a redirect should be reserved for clear and obvious cases. Regarding User:Reddogsix/CSD log, yeah there is a lot of blue in that, particularly on biographies like Danielle Whalebone, Samita Nandy and Noni White. I think I've looked at all three of those BLPs and noticed problems, sure, but none of them meet any CSD criteria. As for what to do, it's probably best to ask a more neutral admin who hasn't spent years declining them like me and SoWhy. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone for their input. I have a better idea, I am going to walk away from my account and leave editing and NPP to others. While I respect comments by those such as Ritchie333 and others, I am appalled at Incnis Mrsi's reference to my work as vandalism and rubbish. We sometimes forget we are volunteers trying to do good work and sometimes we are not perfect. Yes, I have made mistakes, but such is my nature. Thank you and my best you you all. reddogsix (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what Incis Mrsi said. He said you had a competence problem working in the areas of reverting page move vandalism and tagging rubbish for A7, not that your edits were themselves vandalism and rubbish.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Reddogsix, I'm really sorry you feel like that. As I said above, your AfD stats are fine, so all you need to do in the future is when you think CSD, just think PROD or AfD instead. Then all will be fine. If I thought you were doing a bad job at NPP, I'd have said so, but aside from the single issue of a blind spot on CSDs (particularly on biographies), your NPP work is good. Don't get discouraged. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, that is correct, but it does show my frustration and walking away is still my choice. My best to all. reddogsix (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Samina Malik

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

---

Samina Malik the lyrical terrorist is always showing up when people search for my name or business. My name is also "Samina Malik" .

Is there anyway around this so that when someone looking for me is not directed to your Wikipedia page of her, it's ruining my image and business prospects :(

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.87.211.163 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Samina Malik is the only notable person of that name currently written about in Wikipedia. (Pro tip: do not start an article about yourself unless you clearly meet the general standards of notability or standards for biographies.) Further, we cannot control what Google, Bing, and other search engines do with our data. —C.Fred (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There are probably many people who share names with those infamous for various crimes and events. There is not much that can be done about it, especially not in Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia were to change the name of that article title (which won't be happening), the indexed contents of that article—and Wikipedia's privileged placement in search results—will still cause it to be among the first search results for anyone searching that name. I doubt anyone is confusing you with that other person, though. If so, however, then that is something you will unfortunately need to handle on your own, such as by changing how you do business. We cannot help you with that.

In the future, a better place to seek assistance would probably be at the Teahouse. This page is for editor conduct requiring administrator intervention, which your issue is not. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's one of those co-incidences life throws at you. When Steve Wright was convicted of multiple murders, I suspect the judge didn't say "love the show". I went to school with someone called Johnathan Ross and you can guess the rest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I went to school with someone named Lotta Krap. Perhaps people should just count their blessings. John from Idegon (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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

UN GA 73 General Debate

Hello there! I need help.

I am the one who started General Debate of the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly. But, in my honest view, it seems that someone has edited that article his own way and make disruptive edits (see here).

In fact, I try to make this article better by doing final lists of speakers, daily and overall conclusions as well as concise replies by countries. This is to provide general readers with better understanding towards the content. But the content as well as almost hundred of edits, as of now, seems to be much disruptive than before.

Can it be considered an edit warring? And if not, is there any opinion on how to make such article better? Thanks. Aamuizz (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly this looks like a relatively tame content dispute. A whole bunch of significant edits in a row isn't ideal edit behaviour, but it's not edit warring and you both seem engaged in talk. Why bring this to the drama board? Simonm223 (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Because I want anyone to see whether edits done in such article are problematic or not. I am somewhat unsatisfied with the quality of edits he has done in that article. We engaged in talks, but I am still unsatisfied with those edits. While I try my best to make such article more quality, he still want his edits to prevail. Aamuizz (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, at this juncture this is something you'll probably be able to better address by discussing it in the article talk. When I checked an hour ago there was nothing resembling an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• Aamuizz, there is no rule against doing major edits in several steps rather than as one huge change, and many editors in fact prefer to do so. It is not disruptive and there's nothing wrong with it. If you disagree with the edits themselves, please handle that via standard dispute resolution. Step one of that process is to discuss the matter reasonably and calmly with the editor with whom you disagree, not to escalate the issue to a drama board. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Renewed talk page disruption

• David Michael Hine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Renewed talk page disruption 1 at Talk:Hubble's law after previous block expiration for same. Was reported at wp:AIV, but user Ad Orientem suggested to bring it here: [150]. Previous report at ANI resulted in block by user Caknuck (persistent disruptive editing). - DVdm (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'd support an indef of this user, who is clearly WP:NOTHERE except to grind an WP:AXE that seemingly can't get sharp enough for him. Classic WP:SPA advancing a WP:FRINGE view in violation of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX. This extends back to May, when I soundly debunked them (their response? a very excellent example of ad hominem as a logical fallacy). I see literally nothing to be gained from allowing them to continue editing here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked indef--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Devil's triangle

For the rest of the world, an alleged slang use of this word has come up in the conentious Kavanaugh hearings. This has led to an edit war over the article Devil's Triangle (disambiguation). (Alleged source for one of the edits.) I've placed the article under a 24 hour protection from unregistered & unconfirmed editors, & hope that the people involved will have moved on to other topics in the meantime. -- llywrch (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Devil's Triangle (disambiguation) Yetishawl (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WaPo mentioned this, see Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's now been fully protected with the problematic content in place. I've posted on the talk page there, but feel this deserves greater attention. It's a extremely political hot topic right now, and given that it seems to fail WP:V (the closest thing to a reliable source that I've seen is NYT discussing only in the specific context of Kavanaugh's high school), I feel we should remove it ASAP. Could we please remove it immediately until the discussions on the topic are resolved? Waggie (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: It's now been reverted to the last stable version by Salvio giuliano. Waggie (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

salting 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.

---

An article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali. Yet user राग keeps it recreating and moving. Kindly salt these two article titles. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the user was warned a lot of times, and I tried to ask them about the moves as well. No response. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've salted the versions created and/or moved to so far, Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali, Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali (TV series), Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali (serial), Draft:Dastaan-E-Mohabbat: Salim Anarkali, unless I got confused. The user has been amply warned, as you say, and will hopefully be blocked if they do one more move. Bishonen | talk 15:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC).

Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Incomplete AfDs on articles for songs by Kayne West

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

---

• Kyle Peake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.26.97.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Kyle Peake and 64.26.97.61 seem to be at loggerheads over the number Kanye West songs we have articles for. IP is nominating some of them for deletion but appears to be unable to do so, hence there are a number of incomplete AfDs out there. I initially reverted some of these incomplete nominations, then completed one for them, but as this is continuing I think it's come to the point where admin intervention is needed to assist/advise/sort out the mess, and maybe caution one or other of the editors.

See User talk:Kyle Peake for some of their interactions, and Template:Kanye West songs for an idea of how thorough some editors have been in creating articles for Mr West's canon of work. It does appear to me, from a quick inspection of a sample of these articles, that WP:NSONG is being severely tested by them and I have a lot of sympathy for 64.26.97.61's position, though overall I have no interest in the artist and little opinion in the matter.

As far as I can see, the articles which this IP has nominated so far are:

• Gossip Files, which I completed the nomination for
• Hurry (Teyana Taylor song)
• Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)
• Lord Lord Lord
• Looking for Trouble (song)
• Good Friday (Kanye West song)
• Primetime (Jay-Z and Kanye West song)

Thanks! Dorsetonian (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note: Also, School Spirit (song) (incomplete). Eagleash (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Wangbot

The following discussion is closed. 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 somebody please revoke Wangbot’s TPA? After giving out possibly real passwords for a vandal to steal, he is now requesting revocation as he is clearly not here to contribute, not to mention his username is also misleading. StormContent 20:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done, happy to oblige them.. - TNT ^💖 21:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 & lack of respect for other 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.

---

Hi. I am here to report AlHazen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has been doing disruptive editing on Islam for quite sometime now. He/she has also shown lack of respect for the views of fellow editors despite exhaustive discussions here & here. I also invite Mingling2, Nillurcheier & Eperoton to share their views on this matter.

My request is to block the user from making edits on Islam for sometime. Regards Alina Haidar (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 addition of unsourced content by Cubisme

The following discussion is closed. 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. Cubisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding unsourced content, mostly the line "He is Muslim" to footballer articles. Two examples: Boubacar Barry, Seydou Doumbia. They have have been sufficiently warned. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock request

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

---

Hi. Please can someone rangeblock the 39.57 IP range listed here. This is a long-term abuse case that keeps cropping up. They are currently editing at 39.57.107.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I reported this one about 2 hours ago at AIV, but there's a bit of a backlog. I'd be grateful if the latest IP is blocked and a rangeblock put in place. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done 39.57.0.0/17 rangeblocked for a month. There are a very few constructive edits back a month or so, but everything since then has been this editor. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BK, much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Another editor using a similar username

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

---

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

I believe the above account was created solely to mimic my own username, AlexTheWhovian; checking their contribution history shows that their only major edit was to revert me at {{The Big Bang Theory}}. Is there a policy against this? -- Alex^TW 02:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - there's a separate noticeboard for username violations. —Mythdon 02:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon: Thank you; I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. I've moved this post to there. -- Alex^TW 02:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Mythdon The username by itself is not a violation. There are lots of editors with similar usernames around here. The problem is the stalking of AlexTheWhovian's edits on that template and the fact that they cite BRD with their second edit. Whether their is any relation to this IP 2602:306:381E:6860:4415:2AF3:8F25:F6EB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hard to say but an admin could take a look at things to determine what is going on. If action is taken at UAA then great and this can be closed again. MarnetteD|Talk 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 - It would be no different to someone having the name "Davey2011" so I wouldn't class this as a violation, That being said I do agree with MarnetteD in that the stalking does warrant a check and block if deemed necessary, I would also agree in that they have tried to maybe impersonate you so again that should be looked in to, I would suggest closing this and going to UFAA. –Davey2010^Talk 03:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 AtW has already filed at UFAA. I had reopened this since the name by itself may not acted upon at that notice board. Apologies if I did not make that clear with my first post. MarnetteD|Talk 03:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah right sorry I had no idea, In that case maybe ANI was a good idea, Thanks for letting me know anyway :) –Davey2010^Talk 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Much of the concern was about the username which was why I directed them to that board (and I'm sure its mentioned somewhere in the username policy about usernames that are intended to harass). It doesn't really matter where action is taken and I only closed this thread because the complaint got taken to the other board. I only meant to suggest that Alex could take their complaint to UAA, not that it couldn't still be discussed here. I didn't mean to sound bureaucratic by pointing anyone to a different board, if that clarifies anything. —Mythdon 03:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries Mythdon. I didn't think you were being bureaucratic. Fortunately, AtD hasn't edited again so we will see what admins determine no matter which notice board they respond to. Cheers to all. MarnetteD|Talk 03:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This may be a sock/troll, but even if it is a good-faith new user, they should be encouraged to change their username. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I've softblocked the name; as power suggested, they should change it. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• The user should be encouraged to change their username, but an ANI with suggestions of "a check and block" is completely overboard. If I assume good faith, it seems like someone edited anonymously, saw their changes were undone so created an account (humorously inspired by another's username, but presumably without knowledge of our detailed and confusing username policies). Not a case where anything other than a username change is necessary. This thread should be closed by someone uninvolved. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 10:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Citing BRD with their second edit is "not" an editor without knowledge of our policies. The fact that the editor has created AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk · contribs) to continue their edit warring after AtD was blocked shows that they do not care about those policies. MarnetteD|Talk 12:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed my username to be less similar to that of Whovian since he is being pathetic until the issue is sorted. What edit warring? I reverted Whovian's edits on the template twice, not breaching 3RR. Knowing that one policy is not "knowledge of our detailed and confusing username policies". AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding one word to your username is "not" less similar to your first creation. BTW you now need to read up and learn aabout WP:NPA policy. MarnetteD|Talk 12:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

This thread definitely shouldn't be closed, now that the editor is SOCKing. -- Alex^TW 12:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding a word to my username does make it more unique. I am only using this account to communicate try unblock my main account, not edit any article. AlexTheEconomicDoctor (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you create another account to get around your ban? Yes? That's SOCK. Article and talk page is irrelevant, it doesn't matter where you edit. It's SOCK. -- Alex^TW 13:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Note that this user was explicitly permitted to create a new account after AlexTheDoctor was blocked. Doing so is not considered a violation of WP:SOCK. However, just about everything else about this user is setting off warnings. --Yamla (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I should have indeed been more precise in my explanation of the block. I am pretty sure the user know this, but I will leave a comment for them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Orugaberuteika/Jizugatudo : COI and CIR concerns

Orugaberuteika (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account concerned with the article Ryuho Okawa, about a Japanese religious leader. The article about Okawa as well as that about the controversial religious organisation he started, Happy Science, have been targeted by COI accounts from time to time, who try to whitewash the articles and remove well-sourced criticism. So far, so depressingly common when it comes to articles related to religion. Orugaberuteika was registered on 31 August this year, and they have also edited as Jizugatudo and using the IP 126.33.19.67; the connection was self-disclosed here and the multiple accounts seem to have been a genuine misunderstanding.

There are two concerns: a refusal to comply with repeated requests to formally disclose their COI, and an inability to understand English, and to write in comprehensible English. They claim to "have a lot of information about Okawa"; when asked about their COI they appeared to acknowledge it; they refer to "our activities" (possibly just a language/CIR issue but I really doubt it); and they use the connected contributor request for their edit requests. All these things taken together, as well as their total focus on one article, signal COI. They have been asked repeatedly to disclose this COI, [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156]. After the third request on their talk page (third diff in the previous sentence), I posted this on the article's talk page, which Orugaberuiteka answered with this. My reply was maybe a bit exasperated, but it was answered graciously - after which Orugaberuteika continued making edit requests and other edits without addressing their COI in any way (even to deny it), and they have kept doing so, despite several renewed disclosure requests. I am running out of ways to say "You have to reply to this concern before you make any other edits at all", and it still hasn't registered.

That may, however, be at least in part due to their massive lack of understanding of English. I work with English language proficiency, and meet students from many different countries - I'm pretty good at deciphering what people mean and don't care whether they use "correct" English in conversation, but I honestly cannot understand this, for instance. Over and over they have demonstrated that they, too, don't understand what people say: here I asked Jizugatudo if they were the same user as Orugaberuteika and said "Please note that using more than one account to make it look as if different people are making the same argument is prohibited." They replied like this, I replied here (again not being as polite as I could have, but patience is a limited resource, especially when dealing with COI editors asking us do do their work for them). Another example: a couple of weeks ago they asked if the number of members in Happy Science could be added to the article; I responded, they appeared to understand and agree, but ten days later they requested the same thing again (two talk page sections with identical titles about the same topic).

At this point, their refusal or inability to read and comply with WP:COI, WP:V and other policies, as well as their inability to even communicate in English, is becoming disruptive. A couple of editors (including myself) recently removed Orugaberuteika's article talk page posts because they keep making new posts without addressing their COI, but that also hasn't worked. I'm not sure if there is a remedy to a total lack of comprehension, other than a CIR block - possibly if there is a Japanese speaker in the house who can explain to them what the issue is, but I'm not overly hopeful. --bonadea contributions talk 11:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• yep they are clearly here to promote this person and the religion. This comment, about understanding Japanese as somehow mandatory, is very wrong-headed. The language is daunting, layered on top of their not understanding what we do here, and the bludgeoning.

About the COI thing, they do seem to have some notion that they shouldn't edit directly; they wrote here: Please reconsider. If you stop the discussion I have to make a direct fix. I also want to avoid it from the spirit of the wiki.. Do you see? And they are making edit requests. But they have not disclosed their connection. For all we know the person is a paid PR person.

I recommend indeffing both accounts. One can be unblocked, after the person discloses and understands that they cannot use WP for promotion. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed both accounts, in what I hope was an explanatory way, and blocked the IP 126.33.19.67 for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. That's a good explanation, but unfortunately they didn't read it - instead they went ahead and created Opqi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --bonadea contributions talk 05:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, blocked, but I'm on the run now. Other admins, please step in if there's more of this. Bishonen | talk 06:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

And I'm back. Orugaberuteika has requested unblock, and I have given them a slew of very specific questions to answer first. Let's see if they understand the questions and if I understand the answers. Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

Wanted: Japanese speaker

As per above, we are having great difficulty in communicating with this user. I hope the questions I've just posted for them at User talk:Orugaberuteika will do the trick, but in case not, is there a Japanese-speaking admin or experienced user who might help? Bishonen | talk 12:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC).

• Try Category:User ja-N, its for those who self ID as speaking Japanese natively. You should be able to find someone able to help. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Paging The Blade of the Northern Lights. EEng 15:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• Can't believe Hijiri88 and I are not getting calls for this gig. Alex Shih (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  (sheepishly) I had imagined Shih to be a Chinese name. Besides, we all thought you were taking it easy to heal your post-Arbcom shattered nerves. EEng 21:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been living in Japan for the past 8 years (until recently), my dear friend. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to have forgotten @Nihonjoe:. Blackmane (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I hate to say but Nihonjoe's Japanese ability is about the same as The Blade of the Northern Lights I think. If we are talking about enwiki admins that actually speaks Japanese fluently, Dekimasu would be one of the names that comes to my mind. Alex Shih (talk) 05:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Blackmane (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm decent at translating information, but not so decent at discussions in Japanese. Also, I haven't done a lot in Japanese for over 17 years outside of translating a few pages here and there. So yeah, quite rusty. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Shii's disappeared off the face of the earth, as had Yunshui for a long time; the latter has since come back, and revealed that his Japanese was not as good as I thought it was. Also I'm not an admin. I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting about at least one Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin with whom I've interacted in the past. As for Japanese-speaking non-admins, I'm definitely not the only one, but I'm probably one of very few, if not the only one, who frequently pokes his nose into ANI drahma-fests in which he is not directly involved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me think for you! Another Japan-focused and Japanese-proficient admin would be Mr. Stradivarius whom I often stalk as well (laugh). Alex Shih (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If Mr. Stradivarius is an admin, he's found a way to circumvent the script Curly Turkey (another Japanese-proficient non-admin) told me about that puts a coloured border around links to admins' user and user talk pages. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Mr. Stradivarius is definitely an admin). Hijiri88 has kindly translated my questions for Orugaberuteika, and O has answered that he has no COI, merely an interest, and has made other assurances. I have assumed good faith and unblocked, with hesitation, as the user's English skills remain a problem. If some of the Japanese speakers mentioned or posting above would watch the article Ryuho Okawa it would be very kind. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC).

Huh. Apparently the script doesn't work when the link uses Template:Noping. You learn something new every day.

As for Okawa: yeah, I'm not going near that. I was TBANned from "Japanese culture" by ArbCom for the better half of two years, partly because a (now site-banned) editor, who almost never wrote what sources said (and himself apparently had a religious motivation), was able to repeatedly convince a sizable portion of the community, who weren't willing to read the English sources, that I was a religious POV-pusher trying to "censor" criticism of a certain Japanese NRM. and not in fact just making sure English Wikipedia said only what the reliable sources said. It got to the point where, the community having failed to deal with it repeatedly over the course of more than a year, ArbCom got involved, and since ArbCom accept evidence from users with unrelated "beef" with the involved parties and lump all the disputes together, two other users who were hounding me at the time also got to be named as parties even though they had nothing to do with it.

I'm not touching NRMs unless I have advance assurance from the community that I will be exempt from sanctions for addition or removal of content based on my good-faith reading of the sources, and that's something I wouldn't expect to be offered.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Huh. Reading back over it, I now notice that Dekimasu's name also doesn't have the border, and I know Dekimasu is an admin, so that probably should have clued me in earlier. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88 and Bishonen: Thanks for the ping (and the no-ping ;). It looks like everything is sorted out now that Orugaberuteika has been unblocked, but I would be happy to help with future Japanese communication problems should they arise. These days I'm writing emails in Japanese all day at work, so writing in Japanese on Wikipedia as well wouldn't be too much of a stretch. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: if you think it would involve risks for yourself, you should perhaps stay away. Thank you for the translation you did. Mr. Stradivarius, I'm not sure everything is sorted out, since two highly experienced editors, Bonadea and Jytdog, have the impression Orugaberuteika does in fact have a COI. And I'm still worried about their communication problems. I'd appreciate it if you'd watchlist the article and keep an eye out. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC).

2601:246:ca00:9ff2:1df9:fd87:4c24:5429/64

These accounts have been adding nonsense to various articles as seen in their contributions. I think we need to make a range block for them so they don’t vandalize any articles again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B06A:DE42:3805:B5F4:D0A8:2DB7 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for creating a discussion here to report your concerns. I look at look at the contributions for this range, and they haven't made any edits since yesterday (and of those were only two edits). I obviously can't do anything now, since time has passed and it would be pointless. Just keep an eye on the contributions from this range, and let us know if disruption continues and during the time it's currently going on. We'll be happy to take another look and (if needed) proceed with action in order to stop the disruption. Thanks again for expressing your concerns here, and I wish you a great day and happy editing :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation of sock spam accounts

Hi everyone! There have been ongoing attempts by someone (or someones) to engage in the mass creation of spam accounts with similar usernames for quite some time, but it has since picked up substantially starting the other day. One example out of many that were verified by a CU (after I brought it to their attention) is 대학생 김괘걸, and represents one out of the at least 30 others that were blocked.

As I type this ANI discussion right now, I'm currently keeping a huge floodgate under control regarding the very high number of sock puppet spam account creations. If you see my recent block log, as well as this edit filter log, you'll have an idea of just how many I'm currently managing and keeping contained at this very moment right now... accounts like 33最新弹窗引流协议无限发271383970, 63新弹窗271383970万事如意, and 新弹窗27138970妨仕涸频油扰 (to just name a few). I'm keeping them handled, blocked, and declined by the edit filter for the most part and the project has been mostly been protected from this flooding, but I'm sure that there are many more that I've missed and didn't block. I've been at this for about 3 straight hours now, and I'm probably going to be continuing to keep it handled throughout the night. The edit filter has been great with scooping up most of the account as they try and get created, but I keep having to update it as their M.O. changes in order to get around my previous updates to it (it happens about every 10-15 minutes).

Can I have some CU assistance with locating the underlying networks and ranges that this is all coming from? Can I have some more eyes on this so we can put a stomp on it? I'm doing my best to keep this all under control, but I'm sure that there are more accounts that I've missed due to them using different usernames I didn't catch... I appreciate any help and assistance in advance :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: It looks like the rate of the attempted account creations have dropped to pretty much zero now. I haven't seen anything come into the new user or edit filter logs for about 20 minutes now, and I'm not seeing an attempt to sneak new accounts through with a username pattern that's completely different. The creation attempts may very well pick right back up as suddenly as it stopped (I've seen them do this purposefully in the past), so I'm taking this with a grain of salt right now. I'll keep this discussion updated or add another follow-up if things change. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a big ISP. Lots of /11s. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate - Yeeeap, that's what I figured... are these IPs they're using open proxies? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No, they are using single IPs in disparate ranges nullifying range blocking. They are popping through these and trying to make an account or three and then they move on.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Berean Hunter - Oh fun...... that's not going to complicate things at all... /s. Oh, I forgot to ask: were there any significant groups of accounts with similar usernames that I didn't catch or block? The usernames changed formats and were re-arranged quite a number of times in order to purposefully change their M.O. and get past the filters I put in place, but they generally all stayed similar enough to where you could quickly catch what they were throwing. I'm curious to know if they used other methods to sneak them by. I wouldn't be surprised that, given the high rate in which these accounts were trying to flood in, he didn't use that as a distraction to sneak in completely different accounts while the focus was drawn toward the flood... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oshwah, I didn't see anything that the filter or you didn't catch. They may use one to three IPs in unrelated ranges and are cycling through them quickly. I have checked seven /16 ranges and there appear to be many more; I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to keep checking.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this for a while. To echo what Berean Hunter said, there are lots of /11 ranges involved. For those who can't read CIDR, that's a lot of big. If it gets extreme we have filter 895 which can block all Chinese names created on this wiki. There are not many Chinese names created on this wiki. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zzuuzz! Exactly! Wikipedia gets extremely little accounts created that are in Chinese; that's how I caught what was going on quickly and why keeping the flood under control actually wasn't that terribly difficult or too much for me to do alone ;-). Correct; /11 CIDR ranges are massive, regardless if you're talking about an IPv4 /11 or an IPv6 /11 (an IPv6 /11 would be... stupid to use... lol). That fact aside, we can't even apply blocks larger than /16 in IPv4 or /48 in IPv6 - so even if we were utterly crazy enough to apply such a large block, we couldn't do it anyways... lol. Alright, that's good to know; thanks for checking and for letting me know that you didn't see any other accounts that snuck through. I just try to think in terms of, "okay, if I were the troll here, what would I do?" - I find that if I peruse those avenues, I end up either catching more disruption or taking steps to close doors and prevent more trolling ;-). Berean Hunter, if you haven't stopped diving through /16 ranges in order to look into the contribs and activity of the larger /11 ranges, I'd just stop doing so. With the information you both provided to me here regarding what they're doing, there's really not much that can be done... don't waste your time looking for something that you know won't be there ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You can block up a /19 on IPv6: see mw:Manual:$wgBlockCIDRLimit. I wouldn't recommend it, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hoi hoi, just noticed the pattern in some of their accounts 271383970 and blacklisted them on Meta. (well they'll find new patterns soon but anyway) — regards, Revi 14:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

And gonna use the magic 8 ball... hold on. — regards, Revi 14:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

-revi - Add 27138970 as a blacklisted term on Meta as well (it's the same number as yours but with a '3' missing). They started using that number in creations instead and after I added the first number to the edit filter to reject them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — regards, Revi 14:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) (added — regards, Revi 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC))

Since it's already late in my timezone (10 minutes before tomorrow), I just did a quick check suspecting xwiki spamming, nothing showed up till now. — regards, Revi 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hello, I'd like to bring your attention to a disruptive editor at M*A*S*H (season 10). The editor going by the name __173.235.84.234 was engaged in an argument with another editor regarding production codes of MASH episodes. No one provided citations supporting their points. I entered argument as a 3rd opinion against my better judgement (you will see my note on the talk page about how I felt I should decline the 3rd opinion due to hostility but decided to weigh in anyways).

I went to an episode and pulled screen caps that settled the argument in __173.235.84.234's favor. This editor then made the edits, but included several hostile hidden messages warning others not to change the information again. I reverted the edit with a note telling the editor to just make their edit and that the hidden messages were over the top. The editor has now attempted to move the argument to my talk page, but I have stated that I will not be engaging with the editor any further. This editor's actions have been combative and hostile throughout and does not seem able to engage in a civil discussion. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

On second review, their message on my talk page is not as argumentative as I first took it, however, the hidden codes, dramatic argumentation, and lack of collaborative spirit are still issues that should be addressed with the editor. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 20:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Irish neutrality during World War II please

I think some admin eyes would be beneficial at Irish neutrality during World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 51.37.225.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has a "different" view of the nomenclature to be used, and has not responded to a request on his talk page to use the article talk page to discuss his position. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That might not be a good idea because you would probably end up blocked for a 3RR violation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that some admins would rather block editors who try to get people to use talk pages, than do fuck all about POV warriors. DuncanHill (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I sometimes edit content relating to Ireland. And working which way to handle some IP edits like this are a right pain. In future it may be best to start with a Template:Welcome-anon-unsourced and escalate if necessary. It may also be worth bring to the attention of Wikiproject Ireland who should be able to give project guidance on contentious issues. At the moment the admins would likely say its a content dispute. Thankyou. (I'm not an admin .. just watching dues to another ANI dispute) Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for three days, which hopefully would encourage the IP editor to communicate since they seem to be editing in good faith although with misguided effort. Not exactly a content dispute when the existing consensus for this context seems rather clear to me as described in WP:IRE-IRL. On a side note it is much more difficult to attract attention for topic areas with less traffic like this one, and it is frustrating indeed. There is no need to take all matters in your own hands; after third revert, just report it right away. Alex Shih (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone revoke this IP's talk page access?

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

---

Hey, could someone go ahead and revoke 174.16.127.162 (talk · contribs)'s talk page access, it seems he is misusing it and was removing his block notice before I warned him. I don't want this turning nasty or anything. It also appears the IP is a duck of WP:LTA/DENVER having done a geolocate already so this guy smells of socks. --IanDBeacon (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done - TNT ^💖 20:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Attempt to have self admitted sock of BANNED user at WP:AIV failed

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

---

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

Xfetcher was created only a few hours ago. His first post was a rather cryptic "I'm sorry" on my talk page.[157] His second post, 3 hours later, was to create his user page complete with an admission that he is a sockpuppet of BANNED user Simulation12 in the form of a template. He also deleted a significant amount of content from Talk:List of Henry Danger episodes.[158] This was reverted by Amaury who reported it to WP:AIV. That was rejected by Spencer who posted the old "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:SPI". The Simulation12 ban discussion mentions some quite obvious vandalistic behaviour so I tend to think a self-admitted sock of Simulation12 falls into the "obvious vandal" but hey, that's not Spencer's concern is it? I don't have the time or inclination to write up an SPI report that probably won't be actioned for several days at least, in which time the sock will have plenty of time to vandalise. However, I thought I'd at least report it here so everyone is aware. I'm not going to notify Xfetcher because that will just give him the opportunity to create socks. If anyone wants to do anything about it, go for it. If not, I don't care. It really shouldn't be so hard to get an obvious banned user evading his block blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Unclear exactly what's going on there, but clearly up to no good. Blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Carmaker1

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

---

Carmaker1 (talk · contribs)

This user has been adding unsourced and/or speculative information, editing against project consensus, and leaving edit summaries that border on incivility. He has been sanctioned for this behavior in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive971#Formal topic ban suggestion and User talk:Carmaker1#June 2018).

Presently, Carmaker1 has been adding unsourced/speculative production dates to a number of automobile articles, and removing the model year dates that, per consensus, take precedence on articles about vehicles sold predominantly in North America (I won't attempt to rehash those discussions here, unless an administrator requests further background). Another editor and I have attempted to engage with the user on their talk page but have been ignored. While there is a legitimate concern in some cases (not all articles make it clear that model years are used), changing information to make the article confusing to the average person likely to read the article, instead of resolving the issue, makes it appear as though he's trying to prove some kind of point.

Further, Carmaker1 often uses an angry and borderline-uncivil tone in edit summaries, including calling out editors by name (examples: [159], [160], [161], [162]). The last one is a clear attack on another editor, which was followed up with an "only warning" - for an edit made nearly a year prior, which seems to be a great deal of effort to track down an editor simply to harass them. On a similar note, he issued an "only warning" here to an IP for a single edit which, while incorrect, seemed to have been made in good faith out of a misunderstanding.

Finally, the edit summary here of "I will not bother formatting the references..." further calls into question the user's ability to edit cooperatively. --Sable232 (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

This is disappointing. After discussion, I advocated for this user not being blocked in December 2017 after they pledged to stop making uncivil edit summaries regarding disputes over "model years" in articles (and they did stop for some time). I don't think that an indef is necessary yet, but unless they have some explanation for their edit summaries, a short block is called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It is tiring to deal with the fact, other users are NOT intervening and ensuring that prose of an article isn't misleading and collectively maintaining a consistency with certain content. I specialize in providing a timeline and background history for topics on Wikipedia. Generally beyond that, I often don't delve into other things, but I can see that a lot of articles are often tampered with either by, unregistered IPs sometimes adding information contradictory to text within that same article or users who don't engage in discussion/explanations at all, to get an idea of their intentions. The problem I do have is, why do other established users often fail to catch this, yet are so quick to notice edits from regulars doing "repairs" or expanding on information? I did not address Sable232 on my page let alone read what they said (until after the fact), because of anxiety borne from the aggressive approach they had already taken in doing full reverts on my edits, instead of manually removing specific content that truly didn't have a supported citation or provided to be genuinely off. In ways, one can call that lazy, as Buick did indeed introduce particular generations of Regal in 1987 and 1996. Not "in 1988" and "in 1997". Plus a design website for the Chevrolet Corsica program, claimed that the model went into production in late 1986 as a 1987 model (debunked; I found a better source for Jan 1987). My Chicago Tribune and Oklahoma sources supported the Regal dates (and more), yet instead of removing other parts of my submission separately, Sable entirely reverted all of it. That can be perceived as petty, if not rather vindictive and trying to prove a point. Second, in many cases, we have no way of determining if certain users make changes in good faith or to play with pages, versus using their own sandboxes to experiment. There is a difference between introducing new information in an article without a good source or explanation versus deliberately changing dates that already have citations, just to suit a misinformed point of view. Case in point, claiming GM introduced the C/K pickup in the 1960s or AMC introduced the Jeep Wrangler in 1987. Yet it has been proven by me that the former model in question was launched in 1959, which falls within the 1950s and the latter model was introduced in May 1986. And yet, when I take an absence from the stress of this site, I discover upon return, often that someone has again changed this kinds of items around and then I have to correct it for the 100th time, often manually bit-by-bit after many diffs in between. Why should I have to do that, when there is a massive amount of able users still here when I am not logged in? If one wants to talk about misleading others to prove a point, then why revert my corrections and expansion of the Regal and Century timelines, to vaguely-organized designations that already confuse many Americans as to how old their car really is? It is strictly of Sable's opinion, that my changes will "confuse" people, if not conjecture and manipulative, through canned personal offense towards me. The speculative information accusation reads unusually fallacious, based on the supported citations. This is a tactic designed to smear the work of the person in question, without looking too closely at what actually transpired and create negative opinion. My suggestion is, none of us should be reverting content with supported citations. I spent a very long time finding every bit and shred of past GM history, to edit those articles. As beyond a citation, how is one supposed to verify a submission? Invite the OEM in question "GM" into a lengthy Q&A per Wikipedia article? A citation is supposed to suffice, so color me rather annoyed by those puzzling reverts and feeling exhausted about having to fix the same things over and over, without anyone else taking up the mantle. Wikipedia is copied and pasted by so many people, that quality control is very important. We have many excellent users contribute, but why is that a lot of things fall between the lines and are not quickly corrected back to what they should be? I have never been interested in Wikilawyering over other users, but straight to the point. Editing this site at times is not very easy and can be very time-consuming, so some of us can take it very personal if we perceive our time is being wasted and if it is even being used constructively anymore. I value my time strongly. My edit summaries for that matter, are designed to call attention to certain phenomenons that can be improved on or eliminated by learning what is wrong. People are not going to be intimidated by that, but some of it can be toned down if the message is already gotten. Considering many of the terrible things said and done to me when I joined here years ago, I question some of this as possibly crying wolf based on difference of opinion. Anyway, introducing contradictory information is a big problem I have and that of opinionated guesstimates, as against credible information. It is very clear some people really do not exercise thorough research of a topic they are editing and in the process, introduce misleading information generically or undo the valid information in place of what they added. A good amount of us and myself particularly, spend countless hours doing research, which isn't fair when other people do not and are not exactly being called to task. The only reason I am being brought here, is because of my edit summaries and clear disinterest in Sable's own approach towards my contributions, despite having provided evidence for them. I never had any issues working with others, who manage to stay on the same page and do not turn editing into Wikilawyering exercise via opinionated viewpoints. I often thank users for useful contributions I didn't manage to make myself and who make the content of articles richer in level of informativeness. Surely there are plenty of users who do so and I never have issue with them, based on their genuinely collaborative approach to things. As opposed to users that give the impression, they essentially live to revert others edits, whether accurate or inaccurate. I will admit, I need to learn better how to deal with such types. In conclusion, you can see the content I introduced, all have sources, so where was the problem that led to reverting them anyhow? Did my criticism of poor use of prepositions and formatting of date-related language, offend people? Bsically I want and need other users, to pay attention to this aspect of Automotive project content. Getting the timelines and background history fully accurate. From I have observed, it is NOT given due care and attention by other users, meaning I am left to do it myself very often. For one model page it is easy, but for so many brands and models worldwide, that is overwhelming to be doing by yourself. The only time this is given any attention, is by one lone user doing a clean-up of an article and even then, they miss these things and do not care to verify them as accurate. Year-to-year there are major changes and advancements within the automotive industry, that it does matter within an encyclopedia to claim "X model was introduced with innovative Y features in 2000", when in reality that just might be April 1999 launch date (model year 2000) and December 1998 press reveal. It matters very much, but a few users have tried to imply in the past it doesn't and that I "care too much". People need a very good frame of reference, so they are not misled so easily. If someone needs to know about a window of time a product was manufactured or introduced, it doesn't do them any good to provided information that isn't to the point. This should be very easy stuff by rule of thumb. A MY is often introduced the preceding October and sometimes even earlier for many industry-related reasons. Even though I am an automotive engineer with 8 years of experience since internships to present, I don't hold that over others and welcome people to provide more than I can to Wikipedia, as I like to learn new things in that manner.--Carmaker1 (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Carmaker1: Please read this article. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to read your comment unless you break it up into smaller sections, each based around a central idea. A "wall-of-text" such as this is virtually impossible to read, especially when it is very long: you are virtually inviting the response "TL;DNR" (i.e. "Too long; did not read"). If you wish your comment to be considered by other editors, please have some consideration for other editors and present your ideas in a fashion that effectively communicates them. If you are unable to do so, then you probably shouldn't be editing an encyclopedia in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The personal attacks are certainly troublesome but definitely a symptom of a larger problem. Honestly, if Carmaker1 can't communicate how he/she is trying to improve the encyclopedia without insulting other editors, and as Beynond My Ken mentioned about Carmaker1's discussion style (and in the links provided by Sable232) then I think Carmaker1's ability to communicate in a collaborative manner needs to be evaluated. A quick look at this demonstrates Carmaker1's incapacity to communicate in a collaborate manner, which is a prerequisite to editing this project. —Mythdon 05:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have specific evidence of that claim of not being "collaborative" in the form of the majority of my entire edit history (every diff) being combative or non-collaborative? As unless more than a fifth or quarter of my whole edit history is proven to be as such dating back many years, I can only imagine that reads as slanted and rather a personal attack at my reservedness to not bother others for help so often and handle things myself. I edit pages mostly, but I do not frequently message back and forth between other individuals, as not everyone will respond in a timely fashion in which I can read their own response to me. Very few people respond to talk page discussions I have opened in articles and are only interested in monitoring people's edit history to revert. Most users are not like this thankfully, but a select few are as such and have gone to ANI as a threat.

There are many users who do not respond to comments left on their talk page or that of an article they edit in, yet no action is taken regarding that? As I already stated before, very few editors have taken the particular focus that I have towards editing these articles. No focus is made on in-depth, step-by-step timelines of development of cars, because of many editors seeming to have little to no personal interest there and thus only take interest in if a citation is present or to revert content, without checking to be sure it is okay. How will there be any collaboration, if a sub-topic is of little or no interest to other present editors?

It is hardly collaborative for someone micro-manage who can and cannot edit an article, because they favor "model years" as being the only item in an article, when both calendar and model years can written in an article, to explain and differentiate between the two. As busy as I am, I hardly even log in that much and I still see double standards in how these matters are being approached. European brand articles rarely suffer from this "dates" issue (until the topic concerns the US), as they either use both in conjunction (2017 as 2018 model) or simply introductory date (2017) and no reference to vehicle's year in question. It is usually Asian and US brands with contradictory article timelines that suffer this pattern I have tried to counteract on Wikipedia, as no one else helps because they generally don't care, meaning it is left to the person or people that do. Ask that question, as a fact is a fact and all I am doing is bringing them to the table if I can. If anyone wants to join me, the more, the merrier. I resent that no one takes the initiative in US brand articles to maintain the mentioned, the way other users do for non-US brands they care about such as user Stepho-wrs. Adding when a model changeover occurred in real time (year), is not nonconstructive editing.

As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. It is a challenge navigating posting to ANI. From what I even remember, I have never been someone that resorted to racist commentary or that of chasing topics related to supremacists as a hobby, in myself seeing all human beings as deserving of equality. I greatly question how no one finds that offensive, let alone some racism I have encountered from others. I am plainly not interested in playing politics here. I am here to edit and for others to respect my contributions, when researched and cited. I give others the same respect on average, so why shouldn't that be returned to me?

I have never gone stress-free on this website that I often hate reading messages or logging in bringing unwelcome anxiety, which says a lot about the environment and who knows how many other users feel similar. Many have never felt like they've belonged, unless they're an admin and end up retiring from this website User: OSX over unwelcome stress as simply volunteers. I don't know how many times I can say, a better collective grip on actual vandalism is needed. If a user reports a disturbing trend of editing and asks for page to be locked, please listen to them then. I am plainly tired of all this, regarding productivity. I have made many contributions, so why won't I take offense to certain one-sided viewpoints that don't take everything into account? Simply over some mild editing summaries? Yet I have seen people use curse words or foul language with no reprimand? I have work to do.--Carmaker1 (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

QED. EEng 12:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Carmaker1: "As for the "Wall of Text" complaint, that is just a personal attack and not a valid criticism. Many other individuals have lengthy commentary at times, so referring to that as inconsiderate seems like finding any and everything to criticize. " It may seem to be a personal attack, but as was linked before it's not very useful to have such long replies. You may feel like you need to reply with this much, but you actually don't. Sorry to be clunt blunt, but we're all volunteers here, and some of us have other things to do than read this amount of text. If you condense it down to just the key points, we're much more likely to read all of it and not risk overlooking important details. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC) edited 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC) for typo as pointed out by EEng

It might help if you were just a tiny bit less clunt, if you ask me. EEng 20:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Having read through the above paragraphs, it seems that the issues at hand may not be quite clear.

Carmaker1, I have explained multiple times that you are editing against consensus to introduce information that, to the average person likely to read the article, is inaccurate. Your edit summaries are often uncivil and you assume bad faith on the part of virtually everyone who's ever edited an article you've read - in your statements above you continue to portray yourself as fighting legions of devious editors intentionally holding back article quality, and make a number of accusations of bad faith against me personally.

You attempt to justify your aggressive edit summaries because they "call attention" to something, yet say you were given anxiety by my supposedly "aggressive" approach of reverting a small number of your edits in addition to explaining on your talk page why I did so.

(At risk of delving into too much technical detail in this venue: The average U.S. or Canadian Wikipedia reader does not care whether their 2018 Honda was built in December 2017 or January 2018. It's a 2018 model, it was sold as a 2018, is titled as a 2018, and was built under the regulatory requirements of the 2018 model year. The average reader is going to expect that year-to-year changes be listed in model years; exact production dates (as well as the dates of press presentations and when the vehicle went on sale) are of interest primarily to enthusiasts. If the article says "in 1996, engine output increased...", the vast majority of North American readers are going to assume that means the model year, because that's when the change was made. Regardless of one's opinion on the system's merits, it is irretrievably interwoven into the industry.) --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We appreciate your ==>"DRIVING"<== that point home. EEng 01:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that Sable232's footnote is entirely sensible, and if that is indeed a representation of consensus (and I assume it is) Carmaker1 ought to follow it or, if they regularly edit against that consensus, be topic banned from the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:Junior5a

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

---

Junior5a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user won't stop reverting me over an icon used in a template, of all things. (How POINTless.) Also, Engrish. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

This is sitting at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

You made 15 reverts each at {{Deprecated template}} without any attempts to start a discussion at the talk page, and I would like to see good arguments why both of you should not be immediately blocked per WP:3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The Nuvola iconset is, IHMO, fugly. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see this reason listed as an exemption at WP:3RR--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not all templates need icons. Why can't Tdeprecated be just some text in a box, like its other TFD-process-related sister templates? Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 18:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: If Junior5a had stopped reverting, or if he/she had been blocked for 3RR and CIR after his/her 3rd revert, I wouldn't have kept reverting. Lojbanist ^{remove cattle from stage} 19:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave this to another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I gave both of these editors 48 hour blocks for edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Article ownership at List of common misconceptions

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

---

An editor, Fountains of Bryn Mawr is exhibiting ownership of the list article List of common misconceptions. A quick overview shows some startling features:

• Bryn has reverted ~30 edits in two periods covering January-March and July-present.
• Bryn has only ever added content to this article three times, 1, 2 and 3. Two were to restore content they previously deleted, while one was to refactor content based on their reverts of other editors. (There was also another refactoring edit that only added a single character, so I did not bother linking it.) There was one additional case (mentioned at the bottom below), but that same edit also removed far more than it added.
• Bryn has reverted at least 9 different editors on that page since first editing in January.
• Bryn has been involved in at least 3 different edit wars on that article. It's difficult to count because Bryn has so many reverts on that page, but the last edit war was against two different editors, with a third (and possibly a fourth... It's a big talk page) disagreeing with them at talk but not participating via revert. This resulted in the page being protected by SarekOfVulcan today.

A little history with diffs; Back in January, Bryn made a revert referencing a non-existent criteria for inclusion. During that same month, Bryn began "enforcing" this criteria upon other new additions, including one case where they correctly noted that the source did not support the claim, but then straight up lied about what the sources in the linked article said. Hell, the second sentence of the article contains the claim Bryn claimed is not in the article. And this was true at the time, not just now, which Bryn should know, because Bryn had been editing that very article on that very topic that very day. The ownership of the article continued into the next month, with more reverts citing the non-existent criteria [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169] and on, and on and on. Except for a single long break a few months ago, it's continued, with the following reverts from July to the present: [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181]. Note that this is not an exhaustive list: There are a few more reverts that I didn't bother including.

Finally, just recently when Bryn apparently noticed that the criteria they had been referring to didn't exist, they went ahead and added it to the article themself, a move that was immediately protested by another editor, but which Bryn, of course, defended. Bryn then subsequently pointed to the very text they added to justify further reverts (those at the end of the long string in the last paragraph).

I think this is a textbook case of article ownership and that Bryn should be page-banned from that article to halt the disruption and allow normal editing to resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

How exactly is an inclusion criteria written in plain English and quoted directly from the 'Criteria for entries' template [182] displayed in the edit page 'non-existent'? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, replace "ignored, deprecated and non-consensus based" with "nonexistent" and everything else remains the same. This was the state of the article talk page when the edit notice was created. You'll notice, despite the edit summary of the creation of that editnotice, there nowhere in it are these criteria agreed to by anything resembling a consensus. You can also randomly check good additions since that discussion (in 2011) to see that it has not been adhered to by the majority of editors. In fact, it's rarely even mentioned. Finally, you'll note that I gave evidence above of at least one case where Bryn was striahgt up lying about this not appearing in another article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so if there isn't a consensus for the template, start a discussion about removing or revising it. Because as far as I'm aware, Wikipedia doesn't topic ban people for doing what they are told, rather than what someone else thinks there is a hypothetical 'consensus' for. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

After looking at your diff it is clear you are wrong about the lying. Bryn did not write that the information did not exist in the article. What he wrote was that the information was not in the source used by the article. Since the source states “In the long term, social perceptions of sharks, changed from fear to conservation, influencing local, national and international government conservation and management policies.” he would seem to be correct that saying sharks are widely feared is unsupported by the sources in the target article as pertains to “Jaws”. Now I could call you a liar for misstating what he wrote but instead I will just assume good faith and assume you were just hasty and incorrect. 67.170.223.20 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

He removed one of several sources, leaving at least one that explicitly states that which he said no source at the article states. And I did not accuse them of saying the article didn't say that, I said he lied ...about what the sources in the linked article said... (em. added). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that “Despite their relative rarity, many people fear shark attacks after occasional serial attacks” supports “are quite rare, but they're widely feared due to films”?. Do you not see how those are completely different statements? “Many” does not equal “widely” and “after serial attack” does not equal “due to films”. What was the source for a wide fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense? If you do not have one then I would say you calling Bryn a liar is an aspersion for which you should be sanctioned.67.170.223.20 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh FFS, I'm not handholding you through the entire article. Go fucking read it yourself. This source is right there in the "Media impact" sections. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Since when has a BA thesis been WP:RS? 86.149.219.138 (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I grabbed the one for the chart. Try this one for the statement. Nice to see you decided not to read the article like I suggested. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, it was another IP that you told to "read the fucking article". Maybe you should try reading the fucking ANI noticeboard a bit more carefully. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, Dynamic IPs are really common. If you expect me to whois every IP that responds to my comment like they are the same IP I was just talking to, you're out of your mind. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not expecting you to do anything beyond reading more carefully. You should try it sometime, it might make future threads you start at ANI more effective. 86.149.219.138 (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps you will point me to the part of your comment that identified you as a different party than the one with whom I was conversing when you jumped in behaving exactly as if you were that person? I do seem to have missed that, what with my poor reading skills and all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:04, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those sources support a wide ranging fear about shark attacks caused by films in the present tense. The one you are quoting now only lasting claim is that it caused an increase in shark hunting. You owe Bryn an apology for calling them a liar.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Obvious sophistry from my socal buddy is obvious. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Mate, do you actually think your ability to run a geolocation is intimidating? Not every Spanish named city is in Southern California so please next time go with “south bay, buddy”.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

LOL Keep trying. I'm sure if you just keep hounding the same guys, eventually Wikipedia will decide you are a valuable editor and unblock your original account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If he removed one which "explicitly stated" what was removed than you should have no problem quoting the source. If not you really need to strike out the claim that Bryn was lying.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about the contents of the page in question, not user conduct

That page is Exhibit A for how grotesquely and meaninglessly overbroad so many lists are. Not to mention culturally narrow. Why, in Ruritania it's a common misconception that wugglenups can only flandle during a full moon -- why isn't that listed? Plus, the idea that some of these things are "common misconceptions" is just plain ludicrous. "Microwave ovens do not heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food. The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." Yes, I can't count the number of times I've run into people suffering under that delusion. "Did you know," my aged grand aunt said to me just the other day, "that microwave ovens heat food by operating at a special resonance of water molecules in the food?" "No, auntie," replied I, "The functional principle of a microwave oven is dielectric heating rather than resonance frequencies of water, and microwave ovens can therefore operate at many frequencies." "You always were such a clever boy!" she said, giving me a box on the ears. Right. Sure. Anyone who thinks this is a "common misconception" watches too much The Big Bang Theory. EEng 18:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC) What a fucking trivia page. Does it qualify for any deletion criteria? I'd love to vote to delete it and solve this entire thing. --Tarage (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC) The last deletion attempt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict) ​Unless every single entry is sourced to an actual reliable source by Wikipedia's definition—which decidedly does not include most of this mess of blogs, opinion pieces, links to Snopes and Snopes wannabees, and outright "crap I found on Google"—that specifically and explicitly state that the item in question is a common misconception, then it's a straight-up violation of the first of the Five Pillars. I doubt it would be deleted at AfD at present because the existence of this ANI thread will bring the "keep, it exists" ARSholes out of the woodwork, but removing everything that isn't correctly sourced would make a drastic inroad. ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC) That AFD was 7 years ago. Let's have another one. Anything on that article page could be moved to the appropriate article and nothing of value would be lost. As it stands now it is 100% trivia. Who comes to Wikipedia specifically looking for this who isn't already looking at an article related to the topic? --Tarage (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Insomniacs. EEng 19:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Lazy researchers. (Has anyone ever believed that any part of The Sound of Music soundtrack was the Austrian national anthem?) ‑ Iridescent 19:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC) You should add "No one has ever believed that Edelweiss was Austria's national anthem" as a separate entry for the article. Sourced to this ANI thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC) I'm even more taken by Infants can and do feel pain. Does that mean that I have to go out and spend my hard-earned cash on a real pincushion rather than just using the baby like all the other people who subscribe to this misconception? (On the subject of Edelweiss, ironically this shit-sheet of an article manages to neglect the one national anthem misconception that is genuinely widespread, that the words Deutschland Uber Alles appear in the German national anthem.) ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC) You don't have to be an "ARShole" to see that the argument "unless..." is not a good argument for deletion because you are admitting that an encyclopedic version of this list can possibly exist, so everything else is just a question of editing. After all, WP:5P1 says Wikipedia "combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" and these kinds of publications have always included such information and it's clearly a notable topic based on the countless RS that deal with them. Instead of mulling over possibilities for deletion, help out to define strict criteria for such lists and clean them of entries that don't meet them. Regards SoWhy 19:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC) It's also completely inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. For example the very first entry "Searing meat may cause it to lose moisture in comparison to an equivalent piece of meat cooking without searing." is totally against the actual article on Searing that states "Although often said to "lock in the moisture" or "seal in the juices", searing has been demonstrated[1] to result in a greater net loss of moisture versus cooking to the same internal temperature without first searing. Nonetheless, it remains an essential technique in cooking meat for several reasons:" so clearly not a misconception. I also note that nothing seems to be sourced as a common misconception, and I'm not sure how such a concept can be referenced. Tending towards the nuke it from orbit option myself. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC) @Iridescent: What!!!? Noooooooooooooooo!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not gonna fight anyone who wants to bring this to AfD, but I don't see how this article can be improved in a workable way as long as there's an editor there reverting literally everyone who tries to add to it, no matter what their sourcing looks like. The latest edit war is over a misconception that is about as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get. Edit warring over that is a problem. But making the case that this article is a wreck? I'm right there with you. That's exactly why I would like to be able to improve it by adding well-sourced examples while removing poorly sourced examples. Hell, I was arguing in favor of deleting a lot of entries a few months ago, and Bryn's work looked good to me for a while. It wasn't until I saw them responding the same way to good edits as they did to bad edits that this started to stick out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• You think the sources you're edit-warring to add here—which include "Dildographer, a site dedicated to the study of sex toys, the user-generated "Comment is Free" blog section of The Guardian (needless to say, cited just as The Guardian with no mention that it's below-the-line user-submitted opinion on their website rather than the actual paper), the catalogue of the Wellcome collection and a blog called "Whores of Yore" are as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get? If these are the good sources, it really doesn't speak much to the quality of the rest of them. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking if I think Helen King, Fern Riddell and The Atlantic are generally reliable sources for this use? Why yes, yes I do.

If you expect sources covering the history of sex and sex toys to take themselves completely seriously and never to show a hint of humor, then I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. Jokes are not as uncommon in sexology as they are in other academic subjects, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Plus, with the... broad... interest humanity has in the subject, combined with those schizophrenic Western views about the acceptability of discussing sex in any sort of formal way, any expectation of finding immaculate sources discussing a topic in sexuality that the average WPian can verify information in is a recipe for disappointment. I also notice you quoted the highly qualified estimation, but don't seem to have acknowledged that it's a qualified estimation. I didn't say it was perfectly sourced, I said... Well, you quoted it, so you know. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Which isn't what I asked (although if you seriously think opinion pieces by Fern Riddell are a RS for anything other than Fern Riddell's opinions other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall, I think we're done here). Which, of "Dildographer", an old blog entry by Fern Riddell on the now-defunct Comment is Free, or "Whores of Yore" are you claiming represent "as well sourced as one can expect any such thing to get"? It's not like this is some arcane field where the sources don't exist; this is pure "I can't be bother to read the books so lets see what Google throws up" writing. I repeat, if this is what you consider the best of the article, you're making the nuke-from-orbit argument for me. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

other than in her actual field of the politics of music hall Where do you get that from? She's a historian who focuses on women's issues. See [183] & [184].

And I know that's not what you asked; it's what you left out. I also responded to what you asked by pointing out what should have been obvious to you, had you been less concerned with arguing and more concerned with communicating. See the second paragraph in it's entirety. And I also previously stated I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting the article. But if we're going to keep it, we need to fix is, and we can't fix it if some editor owns it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• I guess this has been posted, snowballed, and boomeranged a bit since I last turned my computer on (this place moves fast ;)). I see Talk:List of common misconceptions has a long archive history and it looked to me like they must have reached a consensus and some pretty common sense WP:LISTCRITERIA came out of it (I even mentioned my views on the LISTCRITERIA in talk) and at some point it got added in a 'Criteria for entries' template to the top of the page. Cleaning up the article to what the LISTDEF seemed add up to (a list of Articles that have a certain attribute - contain text describing a common misconception) got me accused of WP:OWN (and called a bunch of names to boot). Anyway, just responding since I have been named in this ANI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

they must have reached a consensus... It took me 2 minutes to discover that no, in fact, they had not. One editor took it upon themself to create an edit notice. See my response to the IP above. What's your excuse for not doing the same research? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says (WP:IAR over WP:CONS) but here goes..... WP:LSC/common sense - when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. As I and other editors have said, if you disagree with that, start a discussion on the talk page to change the 'Criteria for entries'. You have a disagreement with that, not me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You have obviously stated you don't care what anyone else says Quoth the guy arguing against three people and lying about what sources say...

(WP:IAR over WP:CONS) Not only is this a completely bullshit misrepresentation of what I said, but where is this consensus you speak of? I see a consensus of three editors that your objection to the Victorian content is bullshit. Is that it? My reference to IAR certainly isn't intended to override that, since I'm a part of that.

when a LISTCRITERIA says "follow the people at the topic article if they seem to know what they are saying", well... that makes common sense. Yeah, I agree. So why have you been reverting 9+ editors all by your lonesome?

You have a disagreement with that, not me. Even if that criteria is endorsed; you've already had your objections noted, responded to and dismissed by three different editors, yet you kept reverting. So no, in fact, I don't have a problem with that criteria. I have a problem with your behavior at that article. I might even !vote to delete that article if it came up at AfD: I'm of the opinion it's a shit show. I'd like to fix it, but if you want to nuke it, go to AfD and watch me change my tune. Otherwise, go away and let others at least try to fix it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

And so it goes (I knew even responding was a bad idea). lying about what sources say.. you must be reading this ANI with your fingers in your ears going "LA LA LA LA LA...". I think I will shut up now and let this boomerang go wherever its going. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

It's all documented above. Pretending it's not doesn't mean no-one will read it. Also, you should read WP:SNOW and WP:BOOMERANG because I don't think you know what those terms mean. ;) But, here's the good news for you: Since it's pretty clear that the one thing we all agree on is that the article is a shitshow, I'll AfD it right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (4th nomination). I've requested that the protecting admin add the AfD notice to the page. Maybe this will settle it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the quality of the list then why are you arguing with the only person that seems remotely interested in maintaining a quality list. Also, you before wrote that you had a source that explicitly showed that Bryn had lied. Do you have any intention of quoting that source or removing your aspersion that Bryn lied? If not, why not?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already linked to it. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem, not mine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've read both of your sources. Neither support the addition that was made. You accused someone of lying and said the source “explicitly” stated what was added. If this is true then what is the difficulty with quoting the statement from the source that supports the addition? You after all were the one who claimed Bryn lied which unsupported is an aspersion.2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So now you're lying, too. Cool. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Instead of doubling down on your aspersion why do you not just quote the source? I accept I could be wrong. Do you think it is possible that instead of lying, Bryn and I just disagree on your interpretation of the source?2601:646:8500:ECA0:A4D5:1A7D:819B:C1CF (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The trollish nature of MPants edits should be noted including making inflammatory accusation and calling more than one editor here a liar, claiming to want to clean up an article and then attacking an editor who does and edit warring over the article, claiming there are no rules[185] then starting an ANI claiming an editor is breaking the rules, confronting almost every editor in this ANI, spinning off straight into an AfD of the same article after he was rebuffed. He quotes Wikipedia policy and guidelines ad nauseam so can not be ignorant as to what they mean. His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. It seems to be more to inflame or invite conflict than any kind of WP:HERE behavior. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

His launching a spurious ANI, and even an AfD he of the same article he was edit warring over and trying to expand, is very confusing. Doesn't seem confusing to me at all. I care about the project, so I've pushed for a way to improve the project at every step. You decided you WP:OWNed the article, so I reported you here since the few editors actually making an effort to improve that crap weren't able to with your constant edit warring. Note that I'm neither the only nor even the first editor to accuse you of attempting to own that article. But when a bunch of editors hijacked this thread into an argument about content, I decided to take a different tact towards fixing it: AfD and rebuild.

You've already accused me of "name calling" for saying "Your objections at talk are complete spurious and have been addressed multiple times now" which is about the most hilariously over-sensitive accusation I've ever read, and now you're arguing that -because I finally dragged you here on something you've had pointed out to you multiple times by multiple editors- I'm NOTHERE? Hah! Good luck with that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Just commenting to say that the accused user has, in my brief experience with the user, misrepresented sources, used strained readings of criteria, and has generally been unhelpful in actually improving the article. Benjamin (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Continued genre warring after block

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

---

Power G (original) (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem could be solved if the "genre" parameter were removed from infoboxes entirely. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 16:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Yes, let's hope that discussion fixes things, but this request needs attention today. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking over Power G (original)'s editing history, I don't think there's anything drastically alarming here. Many of these edits seem to fall into the realm of WP:BOLD and WP:BRD, but I'll admit, I'm seeing more BR and less D than should be happening. Once you've made a few changes and had them reverted, it's time to consider that your opinions (and, certainly, assigning music genres is a matter of opinion) may not jive with community consensus. So, I'd suggest backing off on the genre changing. If you find a music article where you disagree with the genre assignment, discuss it first on the article's talk page. Maybe people will agree with you, and then you're good to go ahead and make the change. Maybe they won't, in which case I'd say there's plenty of other work to be done, so move on and find other ways you can improve the encyclopedia. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@RoySmith: You should post this on Power G (original) talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

He was pinged here. I'm assuming he'll see it here. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Second SemiHypercube's suggestion that Wikipedia stop trying to comment authoritatively on the genre of bands. It's rare that there will be an unambiguous genre agreed on by reliable sources for any band. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Yes, let's hope that discussion fixes things, but this request needs attention today." No it doesn't. He's made one edit yesterday. If you want something that needs urgent attention, hang around and wait for the vandal who spams hardcore porn on today's featured article repeatedly over multiple IPs. In fact I would suggest that FlightTime takes a voluntary 1RR restriction on all articles. It will get him out of trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Elon Musk

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

---

Due to ongoing requests, this notice has to be reinstated and I ask that the template not be restored to blacklist so that if necessary in the future the notice can be restored by editors other than administrators. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: edit notices in general are on the blacklist by pattern, not individually. Template editors can deal with them, just make an edit request as needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:24, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: What do you want the notice to say ? - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Just the same as the previous revision. I tried reverting it myself but it won't let me. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:  Done - FlightTime (open channel) 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That is one succinct edit notice.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

But if we changed it to magnet we might "attract" new editors. EEng 11:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

• Can we have an edit notice like that for all the benighted people who want to change the designation of the Nazis, neo-Nazism, and Fascism from "right wing" to "left wing"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor not here

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

---

Editor User:Hellokitty14 seems to be only interested in making disruptive edits. Every single edit on their relatively short contributions list is basically vandalism. Recommend indef. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's just a WP:AIV job. Not enough warnings until now, but the likelihood is that their next (if they ever edit again) would trigger the usual indef. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've indeffed. Not a single useful edit so far, no need to have to go through the motions to block a person who's clearly only here to mess around for a laugh. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE/racial slurs

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

---

Excoriation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) No sensible contributions whatsoever, but racial slurs instead (twice) here and here. The user in question does not appear to have any intention of improving the encyclopedia. Kleuske (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Make that thrice. Kleuske (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankfully Alex Shih has applied a block. If any admin available could R/D the edits (and edit summaries) in question that would be helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 10:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the second time inside half an hour that I have seen the archaic word 'thrice' in Wikipedia. DocFergus (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Now thrice. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

<Groans> DocFergus (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Anyone available to WP:DENY Nsmutte?

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

---

Kpullidi, who is a sock of Nsmutte, needs his TP access blocked and his talk page blanked. His unblock requests are personal attacks, and as he has spent the past several years wielding the good-faith assumptions by admins and other editors like blunt instruments on the cranial base of Wikipedia, the more he's denied and ignored, the better. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 19:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

One wonders what sort of mind would strike on "I know! I'll pretend to be someone whom absolutely no-one will believe me to be! That'll teach 'em!" as a "good idea" or even remotely amusing. No, if you wanted to be superfunny, you'd... Well, not stuff beans up your nose. Suffice it to say, I thought up a funnier method of trolling in the few seconds it took me to compose this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Violating WP:Civility, WP:NPA, beginning WP:HA

The following discussion is closed. 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

 – Skyhghway indef blocked, and if their first appeal is any indication they won’t be unblocked anytime soon. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

I have no other choice than to report Skyhighway for the issues commited in the subject, although it was not my intention, but I think it is by far what is happening, although despite I tried to be the less sensitive possible I think.

Prelude:

This user a couple of days ago introduced more bold edits in several articles (Székelys, Central Europe, Romani people in Hungary, Székely Land national football team, History of the Székely people, Szekler National Council, Budapest etc.), including massive page moves, he/she seemed to be a newbie so I think everybody cared this user with more attention and understanding, as I saw he already got a warning from another user for possible vandalistic type edits on an other article, after another warning from an administrator regarding the page moves.

Nevertheless, also other editors noticed his/her edits that had some problems with the format (i.e. Romani people in Hungary) or practise, especially his/her argumentation is some cases have shown a total lack of experience in WP or were totally amazing regarding his way of argumentation (i.e. Central Europe, Budapest). Also in the talk page of the Romani people of Hungary, similar way accused another editor, etc.

After when in the articles the second time I was reverted by him/her, I took the subjects to the talk pages, as I promised and as it is done per wikietiquette, however despite by some article he/she continued to disregard these attemps and still continued some reverts, but I was considering since 3rr was not reached and because in some part he/she have shown some understanding I was considering just sending him an edit warring notification will be enough, hoping he/she will read at least a few WP guidelines, but I did not made any report, assuming good faith.

By the time, he started in my personal talk page a bunch of uncivil, sometimes obscene material and personal attacks towards my person in a prejudicative way, to say nothing of a quasi borderline(?) hate speech and generalization against Hungary/Hungarians. Having experience on this, I totally reacted and cared about him/her with patience, cold head, better reflecting on objectivity, wise evaluation, and last but not least civility. However I warned him more that he/she should ignore such style, but still did not do anything, hoping he/she will a little bit notice himself/herself. Also an talk page patroller warned him yesterday about his uncivil style.

I have to tell here, he/she blanked all of the warnings of other editors, including the one done by an administrator.

As I logged in today (almost recently writing this report) I see again an abusive message in my talk page in the same style as mentioned above, and I see as well the same page patroller is warned him/her for personal attacks in his/her talk page, but I checked he/she blanked it out again with the comment "I am very civil.....I judge objectively".....

No comment...I have at least almost seven years continous experience in WP, and I don't want wish anything bad to any editor and I practise really good faith, but for even less incivility relevant sanctions are made...I am totally peaceful, I don't understand this editor...of course, despite of some still opened issues his/her reverting policy is ongoing...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

What kind of administration action are you seeking? We can always hit him with a WP:TROUT! On a more serious note, are you looking for an IBAN? Blanking of warning is totally fine (blanking is actually considered acknowledgment that they read them), and blanking discussion on your own talk page is generally fine. There does seem to be some rather uncivil comments, including some WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, but it doesn't seem all that bad imo (I've seen a lot worse on WP quite often). It does seem that he doesn't even understand the rules concerning WP:UNCIVIL/WP:NPA/WP:BATTLEGROUND. -Obsidi (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, did you read entirely his/her interactions in the my talk page, or the talk page in other articles I mentioned, especially the talk of Budapest? Sorry, I am not familiar with WP:TROUT and I don't know what is "IBAN" and according to my experience deliberately blanking fresh and ongoing issues are totally not OK. I heavily disagree with you just judging them only "rather uncivil comments", or "it doesn't seem all that bad imo", sorry I have different experience in WP, for i.e. for much-much less an immediate 48 hours block I already exprienced without any discussion. Anayway, let this to be decided by an Adminsitrator who has more experience with such.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

(Non-administrator comment) An IBAN is an interaction ban, see here. —Mythdon 22:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Also, it might be helpful if you actually provide diffs of Skyhighway's edits to the articles and diffs of their comments towards you and links to the specific discussions that both you and Skyhighway were involved to give everyone more context on what is going on. —Mythdon 22:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't see this anyway a solution, since the IBAN punishes the equal way the involved editors, although I did not harm any of the rules and I don't see why I should be limitated by anything since this is not the classic conflic/war of two editors since I was peronally chased and not vica versa. Thus, answering to Obsidi, obiously a solution similar I referred above, but of course only to punish the guilty part, not the innocent one, in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Mythdon, I think I clearly told where are the most abusive parts, head to the talk of Budapest, but before do not miss the last two sections of my personal talk page. It's enough...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

An IBAN can also be one way (in which it would only effect him). -Obsidi (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There does appear to be some CIVIL and NPA issues, particularly in this discussion where Skyhighway seems to be commenting on the contributor KIENGIR by making accusation after accusation toward KIENGIR and calling them "indoctrinated" instead of commenting on article content. Without commenting on the merits of article content, I don't see anything KIENGIR has done wrong but try to discuss things with Skyhighway in a civilized manner. Although I can't do much since I'm not an admin, it serves to at least offer some perspective (seeing as I initially only commented on help KIENGIR to what an IBAN was and to provide diffs).

Also linking to the other two discussions ([186] [187] to make things easier for anyone reading this thread. —Mythdon 23:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) An IBAN is likely the best way to go with this. However, I support a site ban if neccesary. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, Mythdon, Kirbanzo, thank you all for your feedback...yes I was reading to fast what is IBAN (sorry, I don't feel so well, instead of happy editing I have to care about this issue), and I noticed now that one way ban is also possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC))

Given your above comments concerning getting blocked in the past, let me explain a little more how this all works. Administrators don't have the authority to ban anyone (unless WP:Discretionary sanction has been authorized by the community or ArbCom over the topic area due to extensive disruption). They can block people that are causing imminent or continuing damage and disruption (this is not a punishment, it is a preventive tool and usually undone once the person recognizes their error and will not continue). The community can ban people from interacting, or editing specific pages/topics or the entire site (bans are long term when someone appears unable to act constructively). The community includes everyone, admins and non-admins, and once a consensus is reached by the community on this page then the admins will implement that consensus. Just trying to help you understand how it works. So far from what I have seen a block (until they recognize the problems in their behavior of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA) or potentially a one-way IBAN (as most of his problems seems to be centered around you), seems appropriate. -Obsidi (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Obsidi, I did not know/realize that also here the community consensus works, I thought the community have the possibility to express some opinions, recommendations, but the Administrators have the right on a final judgement with or without it. Thank you for the clarification!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

All these just prove that User:Kienger can't find arguments when sourced text was provided. For example I asked him about GDP of Budapest why is 141 Billion in the text when total Hungary has less.. No reply from him. Skyhighway (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a citation for the claim that Hungary has a smaller GDP than 141 billion (your claim is 120 billion)? because our article states over 306 billion and it is cited to the IMF. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominal GDP how much is it? How much is nominal GDP of Budapest? I rightly indicated that Hungarian users play with numbers and inflate them. Can't be bigger the GDP of Budapest than entire country, logic isn't it? Instead, if we're here let's discuss also the civility of the user:Kienger. Skyhighway (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

How much is the nominal GDP of Budapest? - Why nominal? The Budapest article says GDP PPP is 141 billion, not nominal GDP. Probably should have made that clear when I wrote the above comment. I think I've worked out that your 120 billion number is based on, it's what google spits back out if you type in "Hungary GDP" in the search bar: [188]. That said, I have my reservations about these numbers, and I'll leave a comment on Talk:Budapest about them later. [L]et's discuss also the civility of the user:Kiengir - Go ahead, that's what this board is for. Make your argument, and present your evidence. While I'm here, Kiengir and Skyhighway, it'd be helpful if you provided diffs for your points. It's easier to review single edits, than entire page histories to find what you're talking about. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

To Skyhighway: As the community may see, accusations again and again, targeting anything and anone that is Hungarian. On the other hand, I reacted to this user who still does not want to understand how WP works and on the contrary, for every question I could give proper arguments that may be read i.e. all the pages listed here. Thus, you won't be able to bait me ([189]) with another provocations in my personal page into a useless discussion and for something that I already reacted - in the proper place - and you have the obligation to demonstrate something that you cannot, as it is similar in other pages, where you push you own POV, without any support, recently at Róbert Ilyés and Székely Land national football team, but almost every Hungary related article where other editors did already objected your activity (and not I am ignoring sourced text the contrary, everyone may check it). Because you met me first you spotted me, but you already started another argues with other Hungarian editors, who as well noticed your stlye and improper way of editing many of the cases. Regarding my civility, I am not afraid of anything, everyone can check that I was totally civil and more nice with you that you deserved - especially another user warned you about civility and NPA, despite you continued and only after I made my step since not just I was feeling you went by far - despite your awful and prejudicative accusations, provocations, stigmatization of Hungary and Hungarians, I know this became for you inconvenient and it seems you again wish to throw stones at me, instead of thinking a little bit about what you are really doing.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Mr rnddude, Mythdon already provided some relevant diffs about the main subject, however: ([190]) and my personal talk page ([191]), ([192]) you may see the evidence. Anything else in the other pages mentioned may be tracked easily, since most of them do not have long talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Just recently noticed, this ([193]) is again a cheap way of demafation and tries to deminuate the weight if his/her behavior with a flawed causation...I reacted, as well here ([194]) everyone may what style and standard his/her discussions are ongoing, as he/she continued reverts despite the warnings also in other pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

All I see is how you do harass me and you continue to talk a lot, because you lack arguments on the article. I brought solid references and despite this all you do is to lame here. Skyhighway (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me are you kidding? I never harassed you and you keep continuing it all of the pages, my arguments may be read everywhere. You did not brought solid references, as eveyone may check in the corresponding pages. I have to inform the community, that Skyhighway again posted on my personal talk page ([195]) again a message with a demafation, lying, accusations with personal attacks.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

Yes, Skyhighway is a troll. Anybody who has read his messages will conclude that he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

lol, if you can't get sources then the others are trolls, you start ANI, you let warnings, you try everything but to get the real numbers and sources. And all the time the other is guilty. And why you did this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Székely_people&curid=11394933&diff=861712706&oldid=861709292 ? For all admins please read carefully the way they act. They remove sourced, valid text. Skyhighway (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, when I removed "sourced, valid text"? At the Romani people in Hungary I corrected more times the bad format as you introduced the edit but you reverted it more times and after I took the question to the talk page accordingly to WP guidelines, I had no intention to remove it, and also in the talk page you did not seem to understand that my problem was with the bad format. Now you try to identify yourself as a victim, I demonstrated more times why I had to start the ANI and regarding the warnings you also generalize other good faith editors who warned you - including an Administrator -. Don't worry, the Administrators hopefully will check everything, but it seems by similar accusations you risk of being hoist by your own petard as well, if already what happened was not enough by now.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

I came here because of some other pages (namely Moldova) where SkyHighway has been rewriting with pro-Romanian political slant. As Wikipedia is supposed to be free of political bias, and he has been repeatedly warned over there, I'd just like to see some resolution here. IBAN at least. Thanks! Skirts89 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wait a second, you come here and throw stones but you do this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&type=revision&diff=861726399&oldid=861618082 What is the vandalism there? And that word was not placed by me in the first place. Check history of edits. Skyhighway (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It would help if the involved parties actually provided diffs of Skyhighway's edits to the articles (to provide specific evidence that Skyhighway "isn't here to build an encyclopedia"), seeing as how the content dispute itself has made its way to this thread. So far, there's only been links to discussions and stuff. But looking at the edit history of the article linked by Skirts89 this appears to be a blantant whitewash of the Moldova page. —Mythdon 15:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, my edits on the contrary, are not POV but NPOV, see the articles of Szeklers Skyhighway (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I invite other editors to consider Discrimination of Romani people in Hungary as an example of these allegedly-neutral edits. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Especially, Skyhighway is misleading the community, majority of his edits & page moves were contested considering those articles that have connection to Székelys....regarding Discrimination of Romani people in Hungary, it may be considered a joke since he/she is using a source from 2002 (!), and the whole text is a pure propaganda it shows he/she does not have any superficial knowledge of he subject and it's situation recently, also regarding the cases and issue in European and Hungarian inner politics regarding the Fidesz government i.e. in the past 8 years....pfff(KIENGIR (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

• So we have:

  Copyright violations;

  Edit-warring;

  Mass POV pushing (the last example as of today, [196]);

  I do not see any useful contribution.

• I am inclined to block indef per WP:NOTTHERE, unless there are substantial objections. The user will then have a chance to post an unblock request and explain how they are going to correct their editing style if they want to continue edit here.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mythdon:, thank you for your message. Here are two examples which demonstrate Skyhighway's quite surrealistic style of communication. (1) He added a sentence to the article Anonymus (chronicler), without providing a proper reference to a single reliable source ([197]). I wrote a message on the article's Talk page, suggesting that the article could be expanded, but also emphasizing that "we cannot edit an article based on our thoughts" ([198]). His answer was the following "Is this your argument? Do you have others because your arguments are very week." ([199]). Sincerely, I was quite surprised, because WP:NOR is a basic principle of our community. Therefore, I draw his attention to this principle, and also to WP:NPOV ([200]). His answer was the following: "Exactly WP:NOR and WP:NPOV contradicts your edits. Very good that you bring them here in discussion." ([201]). Later, he copied long Latin and French texts on the article's Talk page (I guess they are quotes from Anonymous' work), with the following edit summary: "so, with own words Hungarians admit they were 2nd in Transylvania" ([202]). Let's forget that "the Hungarians" could not "admit" that they "were 2nd in Transylania" (because they only settled in Transylvania after the Scythians, Romans, Carps, Gepids, Goths, Huns, Slavs, Bulgarians, etc, so they cannot be "the 2nd in Transylvania"), but there had been no debate about the succession of peoples in the province during our conversation. (2) He added information about an alleged Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province to the article Romani people in Hungary ([203]). He also wrote a message on the article's Talk page: "Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province it's an idea that appeared recently. This is based on over 10% Romani people in Hungary. Let us check the double standard of Hungarian users on this." ([204]). I have never heard of the idea of an "Autonomous Hungarian Roma Province" and he referred to one single Roma politician's initiative, so I asked him to add further information on the issue ([205]). He stated that the Roma represent 10% of the population of Hungary (which is a good estimation, because about 8-9% of the population here in Hungary is Roma) and suggested that the Roma population should be given territorial autonomy and I should support this idea ([206]). I answered that we are not here to propagate territorial autonomy for a population which do not want to achieve it ([207]). He answered that I "propagate autonomy for a population" and I know to what population I am propagating autonomy ([208]). My answer can be read here: [209]. I do not want to be rude, but he is either unable or unwilling to participate in rational discussions. Do we need to read his phantasamagorical messages? Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

So, let's recap. You had a monopol of some articles and the others can't edit? Only if your POV is pushed? Is this the democracy of Wikipedia? And if others come and add content than you start with accusations. First of all your edits are full of POV, you just push a nationalistic Hungarian POV, an extreme one. Jobbik like, I wonder why you're not blocked for your reverts. All you do is to push a Hungarian xenophobic POV. All people can see your reverts and how you don't accept other points of view. Skyhighway (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• This prompted me to block the user indef.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Székely Land national football team

But. Look the situation here. It is this article: [[210]] Székely Land national football team This one is the heart of all disagreements with the other editors. Because this is not a national team of football people based on ethnicity as the name implies, so, it's not like the French national football team or Italian national football team. This one was initiated in 2014 in Budapest by a guy. Now, he can name his team as he wants, but the article should state clear what it is and it is not. Even if the name is misleading, the article should inform correctly the reader not to understand that there is a nation, a land, a country and has a national team of football. User Borsoka and User:Fakirbakir and User Kiengir are Hungarians and they support very much the misleading article, because they think they help Hungary in doing this. Skyhighway (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all, if mention someone in this board, you have to notify it, you did not notify neither Borsoka or Fakirbakir. However it is very interesting you not just decide other users nationality or whatsoever, you again misleading the community and clearly accuse and defamate more users about something that is not true. Especially, in this article Borsoka and Fakirbakir did not even participate, moreover you are the only one whi is supporting a misleading article, as in the talk page it everybody can check...did you consider seriously in such a cheap way you may mislead the community? And you ask the administrators to check your claims? With lying?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

You are not telling the truth, you want to hide that it's a private company not national one. Since it's Budapest born company has nothing to do with Romanian national team and that's why is misleading. You can't stand the truth. Skyhighway (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

For your misfortune, the talk page of he article contains every information on this subject, and it is contradicting you. Still don't get that an association how could be a "private company", but I am really tired of your inventions and accusations. Will not comment more on the subject here.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC))

Budapest over and over inflated numbers of GDP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Budapest#About_these_numbers Please see other people what they say about inflated numbers and push POV of the editors that started accusation on me. Skyhighway (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Aha, so just because another editor did the work instead of you, it would redempt you from the incivilities, personal attacks, etc. that you commited? This riport is about this, nothing else, regardless how much you try to deteriorate the attention about it.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC))

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

Marjdabi

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

---

In the Egypt article, Marjdabi (talk · contribs · count) introduces controversial material on August 27 that was challenged by two editors, including myself (another more expanded version of the disputed material was also challenged earlier that same day by Moxy). All of those were met by relentless reverting by Marjdabi which eventually led to full page protection. I'll try to summarize the dispute:

• Marjdabi believes that certain recent events should be included because other articles have those (the Turkey article in particular).
• Moxy explains in both edit summaries and on the relevant talk page discussion that those fail WP:UNDUE, that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, and that they should adhere to BRD instead of reverting.
• Marjdabi introduces a corrected, shorter version of the material, which includes loaded terms like "military dictatorship" that are simply not found in the given source. (removing this should be non-negotiable)
• I revert, citing both that issue (source misrepresentation; OR) and WP:RECENT.
• Marjdabi reverts.
• Roger 8 Roger reverts.
• Marjdabi reverts. (I count 5 reverts by them that day)
• I start discussing this on talk (please read the discussion). Most of my arguments, which I believe were policy-based, are met with nothing but statements along the lines of "I believe XYZ should be included because other stuff exists".
• Noticing the deadlock, I initiated an RfC.
• Some editors start pointing out that the RfC was premature and that the issue should have been taken to AN3 instead (again, please read the discussion).
• After some time I withdrew (but did not close) the RfC, and restored the stable version (plus a small addition that was agreed upon through discussion with another editor in that very same RfC).
• Marjdabi reverts, despite being largely absent from the RfC.[211]
• I summoned Marjdabi on talk, but got the same "other stuff" arguments.[212]
• Because WP:NOR is supposed to be non-negotiable, I finally closed the RfC and reinstated the pre-August 27 revision.
• Marjdabi reverts without leaving an edit summary.[213]
• I revert.[214]
• Marjdabi reverts.[215]
• I give Marjdabi one last chance to discuss on talk.
• This is how they responded.

Shortly after our first interaction, Marjdabi was blocked for 1 week (August 28–September 4) for similar behavior on several different articles, and barely evaded a block earlier this week for (again) similar behavior on State-sponsored terrorism.[216] It is clear from such behavior that this user has no wish to adhere to BRD and is willing to make as many reverts as it takes to have it their way. I rarely ever come here, but this user has pretty much exhausted my patience.

Which is why I suggest imposing a lengthy "no revert rule" on Marjdabi, with reverting vandalism being the only exception. I'll let others decide whether this should be accompanied by a block for disruptive editing or not. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I keep seeing this name and it's becoming pretty apparent they have a battleground mentality and don't want to listen. Canterbury Tail talk 12:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

'Incel' Article Ownership Dispute - Admin Ownership of page against site guidelines

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

---

GorillaWarfare, an admin, against wikipedia conduct policy [217] has assumed ownership of the controversial 'incel' article [218] when no one is supposed to do so. Vigorously reverting my own edits, or thylacloop5, or Amin, and a bunch of other uncoordinated registered editors. She has written/tone-policed (ownership) most of the content after the Minassian attack and along with another veteran, for the (purpose of reverting along WP:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs lines for months, but not sure how relevant that is to this board). In a declined Arbcom case [219] (for not going to this board and others for dispute resolution), editor Thylacoop5 had notified myself that he had notified Gorilla of violating the ownership rule, he did so here in late May diff.

Editors are told to use BOLD, REVERT, DISCUSS. But with the exception of the latest edit cycle during/after the arbcom submission and maybe a couple other examples, almost any *meaningful* edits by users other than Gorilla and one or two other veterans go EDIT --> REVERT ---> languishes in talk page. With such a large, long dispute it's hard to provide all the examples of Gorilla reverting without it turning into a NPOV argument or list of dozens of diffs, but the frequency of her reverts and dominant stance on the talk page tells most of the story. The reason I'm all over the talk page is because that's what is required to just make any changes to the article, but this isn't about me or my changes, it's about all the users who want to use their op-ed instead of Gorilla's, just hedging myself in case someone wants to make it about me.Willwill0415 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you serious with this? Your arbcom case was declined as being without merit. Do you really want to have this boomerang happen to you? You've shown yourself to be lacking in competence so I don't think this is going to any better for you. --Jorm (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Editor with 465 edits, of which 325 have been to Incel and its talkpage, and whom was quite clearly told that they were in danger of a boomerang at the AC case, now raises exactly the same issue again? I can't think that's a particularly bright idea, to be honest. Incidentally Willwill0415, User:Thylacoop5 said at the same AC case that once they had discussed any issues with GW, they "enjoy working with GW and she has taught me a lot about how to edit Wikipedia - sort of like a mentor.". I'd suggest a topic ban from gender-related issues to save wasting anyone else's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I already explained why I'm all over the talk page. I've contributed to multiple topics and articles, including ewarren farrell (edit: I mean Warren Mosler, the economist, not farrell), stephanie kelton, hypergamy, men's rights liberation etc. Jorm, It was declined because normal dispute resolution wasn't used beforehand, you were the 'other veteran user' mentioned in the comment you responded to, but your co-operation with Gorilla in their ownership of the article isn't against wiki guidelines AFAIK. To suggest I be topic banned for using a talk page obsessively as told to, but that Jorm shouldn't be topic banned for his obvious political motive RE:the relevant article [220], is silly Willwill0415 (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You've edited nine articles, ever (ten if you include talk pages). And most of those were related to Incel (Toronto Van Attack) or MRM (Men's liberation movement, Manosphere). Only 25 edits have been outside these areas. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton etc are subjects in Modern Monetary economics. # of edits doesn't correspond to how much I've added to any page. AFAIK only once sentence from me is in the incel article, after a re-write from Gorilla. To use Gorilla's obstruction of me and others as reason to topic ban me is not civil. Also, my not using the preview button enough on the talk page inflates the edit numbers by a lot. But this isn't about me, this is about Gorilla's violation of [221]. The reason I have hundreds of edits in the talk page of incel is because that's how much it took to add something to the incel article when an admin dominates the talk page and revert process and owns the page in violation of [222]. Willwill0415 (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support topic-ban as proposed above. Complete failure to WP:IDHT. To be honest, GW reverted very few edits by WW, and this thread in my opinion constitutes harassment because GW has been the opposite of what is described here, i.e. GW has moved away from editing the Incel article. wumbolo ^^^ 18:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Probably a little weird for me to chime in with this, but I haven't moved away from editing the article. It remains one of my focuses—it just hasn't been edited recently by anyone, and I haven't seen any new sourcing I could use to edit it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang Topic banning Willwill0415 would seem an appropriate response to taking a go at GW here for what look like perfectly righteous edits. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• I've contributed to multiple topics [lists a bunch of articles in the exact same topic] Yeah, I'm gonna go with Topic ban the OP, too. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't see how Warren Mosler (sorry not Farrell), Stephanie Kelton etc are related to inceldom. Incorrect.Willwill0415 (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang. Support topic banning Willwill0415 from sexuality, feminism, men's rights, and gender issues, broadly construed.--Jorm (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on GorillaWarfare and Jorm for incel-article GorillaWarfare (together with Jorm) has been a very dominant contributor to the article since it's inception. This has been detrimental to the neutrality of the article as it is heavily skewed to whatever she decides makes it through. I've already given up on contributing to the article. I'm not sure if anything will change, I just hope we can at least get some exposure for this incident. Jorm even admitted his stance on incels here: "As to my opinions about "incels": I don't think that anyone is "involuntarily celibate". It's a stupid term made up to allow dudes who have no interest in developing any game to foist the blame for their failures onto other people". I know a college-educated, 162cm tall, Indian man who lives in the Wests. Try telling him that his lack of "game" is why women disqualify him, and not his race, height and facial features. I hope we can make progress Amin (Talk) 19:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Amin: GW goes out of her way to eliminate personal biases and achieve a consensus. What do you think, why does she respond to all of your talk page threads? Also, notice that GW reverts only a few of your edits. wumbolo ^^^ 19:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Including the articles: "Incels Want Gender Terrorism, Not Sex", [3], "Self-hating 'incel' men are the new jihadists", "The internet is enabling a community of men who want to kill women. They need to be stopped", "Unfuckable' Women Don't Go on Killing Sprees" , "We must try to understand how unwanted virginity leads self-hating incels to murder", "Hating Women Was His Disease"", "A Toxic 'Brotherhood': Inside Incels' Dark Online World", etc etc while rejecting edits from the Donnelly Study or neutral or postive op-eds when it doesn't fit a negative tone isn't 'encouraging a NPOV'. Willwill0415 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) News organizations' article titles aren't written by the article authors. wumbolo ^^^ 19:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't go into the

@Willwill0415: Did you mean to keep going with this thought? [223] GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare (together with Jorm) has been a very dominant contributor to the article since it's inception. I mean, I wrote the damn thing. You're right that a lot of the article was my work, but even a cursory glance through the page history will show other contributors collaborating on the topic with no issue. I'm happy when new edits are made, and I follow WP:BRD if I don't think they're appropriate. Willwill0415 has alleged above that I use BRD to shut down outside editors by reverting bold edits and then those edits languish in discussion. It's normal for poor edits not to gain consensus to be re-added. As for your friend, I'm not sure how he's relevant to a discussion about my Wikipedia editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "poor edits not gained by consensus". The consensus you are talking about is the group of people involved in re-creating a salted article under a different name against broad wikipedia community consensus. For other people heres aying I am "not getting the point", is the point that individual admins can just override consensus whenever they want, force a non-NPOV article by renaming the previous article to a word that focuses on one particular neoligism used by some forums (instead of incelibate, involuntary single etc) instead of a term invoking the sociological concept? At the end of the day, what happened was the tone of an entire article changed due to a news event. This violates multiple wiki guidelines, it wouldn't violate wiki guidelines if the article hadn't been re-created. But as to my OP, given you wrote most of it, and take nearly every issue to the talk page yourself or comment in it, you have assumed ownership of the page as an admin against wiki guidelines.Willwill0415 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang topic ban and a temporary block to stop Willwill's disruption and apparent inability to understand that administrators can write and engage in content disputes outside of their administrative powers. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes no sense for it to call it disruption when I use the talk page as often as required. The claim is a violation of [224], not that Gorilla is engaging in content disputes on the talk page too much Willwill0415 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Except even a casual perusal of the page history shows no evidence of GW engaging in WP:OWN behaviour. Which is what you seem unable to hear. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Protected - I have Extended confirmed protected Incel for one month. I don't care who's right and who's wrong and what the talk page discussions have been; there has been too much back and forth over the past month. The article is already under Arbcom discretionary sanctions and definitely needs experienced editors to edit it carefully and responsibly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: Err, Ritchie? The article hasn't been edited in 11 days. What are you doing? --GRuban (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hang on, so you're all calling for a topic ban on a problem that does not actually exist - what are you all doing? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A few days after I submitted my arbCom case, all edits on the incel article just slowed down and magically stopped. It was weird Willwill0415 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Willwill0415 is an inexperienced editor, is overreacting, and may possibly end up topic banned, but, um ... what does that have to do with protecting the article? Any chance of unprotecting while this goes on? There is no there there, you know? --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that protection on my watchlist and was surprised because the article had been quiet. I’m assuming this was a case of “forgot to check the timestamps” which we’ve all done at some point, EC protection clearly is not warranted at this time, but that topic ban very clearly is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I'll unprotect now. I have to confess I am rather confused about what we are talking about on this thread. Unless Willwill0415 is being disruptive on the talk pages (eg: edit warring, incivility), then if he's not actually disrupting articles, what purpose does a topic ban achieve other than getting a pound of flesh for the regulars? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

what purpose does a topic ban achieve other than getting a pound of flesh for the regulars? Prevents the OP from pursuing a dispute that the OP is clearly vested in, given that they called for sanctions against another editor over a dispute that ended over a week ago. I think a one-way IBAN is also a viable (possible better) route. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That sounds about right. (and sorry Ritchie for the protection EC, Twinkle kinda sent me mixed messages there) Clearly this is a user who is unwilling or unable to drop the stick even when nothing is actually happening. Beeblebrox (talk)

Thank you for unprotecting, Ritchie. I also think doesn't have to rise to topic ban levels. Will feels strongly about the subject, but isn't really being disruptive in the article, at least not recently, and, honestly, GorillaWarfare is doing a good job with the article, quite experienced, and tougher than your average anthropoid; if she needs him to be banned, she'll ask for it. --GRuban (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I just struck my support for a topic ban above, per GRuban's point here. Instead, I think we should close this thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang One Way IBAN I don't know what his problem with GorillaWarfare is (or at least I don't agree with the problems he is claiming), but it needs to end. If he was disruptively editing the page, I would support the topic ban, but that doesn't appear to be occurring right now. -Obsidi (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Given GW doesn't seem to need/want an IBAN I am striking my suggestion for it (I proposed it, as I saw this thread as retaliation and harassment for reasonable conduct). -Obsidi (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Strongly support TBAN from gender issues, broadly construed. Support one way IBAN as well. I'd actually go so far as to also support NOTHERE indef. User is clearly an SPA who is only interested in fringe gender topics such as men's rights and incels, and is now waging a war against an admin who is failing to let them portray what is overwhelmingly considered to be an extremist ideology by reliable sources in a more sympathetic manner. Unreal. We should not be casually tolerating these issues. These kinds of users are why we have discretionary sanctions in place for these topic areas. (Swarm ♠ talk) 20:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  @Swarm: The admin is not "failing" anything or anywho. GW has always allowed the editor to express their concerns about the article on the talk page, and discussed everything extensively and appropriately. wumbolo ^^^ 21:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Er...what? I didn't say that GW is not allowing the editor to use the talk page, or refusing to engage in discussion. I said GW is failing to let the user portray the subject in a more sympathetic manner, and that's why we're seeing these frivolous complaints. What exactly are you getting at? "Failing to let something happen" is an expression I'm using to convey the sentiment that GW is maintaining the standard of content in an article. It doesn't literally mean GW is "failing".[225] (Swarm ♠ talk) 21:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support gender-issues TBAN and one-way IBAN with GW The OP is skating close to a NOTHERE indef. Miniapolis 22:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• TBAN/IBAN/SBAN and indef OP - WP:NOTHERE. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support TBAN/IBAN/Indef Whatever is going to pass. Editor is here with a warped addenda that personally I don't care to entertain a minute further. Not here to build an encyclopedia. --Tarage (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the incel article, if not all gender-related articles. Oppose IBAN (one-way or otherwise) with me. Long time no see, Willwill0415. You're right that I revert a lot at that page—ever since I wrote it, there has been a fairly significant influx of editors (including yourself) who are trying twist the article towards describing all people who aren't having sex but wish to. Past versions of the article took this approach, which is largely why the list of past deletions at AfD at the top of Talk:Incel is so long. For people new to this conflict, you can see an old version of the page that I moved to a user subpage by request at User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy (for some reason the currently-blocked user Thylacoop5 continued to edit it after Valoem requested it be userified, but you can go back in the history and see its previous form if you like). The incel subculture is notable, particularly since it began receiving considerable media attention after the 2014 Isla Vista killings and especially after the Toronto van attack in April 2018. The concept that ordinary men who are not members of this subculture and just aren't getting laid are "involuntarily celibate" however is a fringe view that, in my opinion, is an attempt by members of the subculture to try to normalize their otherwise radical viewpoints. It's also a concept that is adequately described by other Wikipedia articles, such as sexual frustration and sexual abstinence.

A look through Talk:Incel and its archives will show that I have been firm but more than accommodating to Willwill0415 and others pushing this narrative. It will also show that Willwill0415 has repeatedly tried to relitigate the same points, and repeatedly tried to introduce unacceptable sources and original research. On September 7 I warned Willwill0415 that I would request he be topic banned because of his disruption, and that seems to be what set off the ArbCom case and then this ANI request. Which is weirdly timed, I might add—the incel article has been very quiet and it's been almost 3 weeks since he and I last interacted.

I clearly support Willwill0415 being topic banned at least from the incel article, although if he's similarly disruptive elsewhere I'd support a broader ban. It does appear he's somewhat of an SPA based on the articles he's been editing, aside from the "Modern Monetary economics" ones (is there non-monetary economics?) I don't agree with those suggesting one-way interaction bans with me, however—partly because I don't like the idea of one-way IBANs in general, but also because although he has been disruptive while editing the article, he has largely been civil and cooperative in discussions with me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Just coming back to say that I had previously struck my opinion on how the deal with the OP based on an argument I found compelling: Namely, that GW is quite familiar with the situation and competent as both an editor of that article as well as an admin, and as such, GW is in the best position to opine on how to deal with the OP. Since GW has now opined that a topic ban is an appropriate measure, I will defer to her judgement and support the same motion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN and Topic ban This is ridiculous. Willwill0415 has failed to provide evidence that GorillaWarfare has actually assumed ownership. This is appears to more an attempt by Willwill0415 to try and get their way in a content dispute, since the diffs provided demonstrates that GorillaWarfare has actually attempted to discuss things with the other editors in a civilized manner. Dimiss as vexatious complaint and sanction Willwill0415. —Mythdon 03:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• indef Willwill0415 for SPA/NOTHERE rank advocacy. Basta. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• 3 month block and topic ban seem to be a good start JC7V-constructive zone 23:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block and a topic ban from gender and sexual based articles, should he successfully apppeal the indefinite block at a later date. Clearly this user is a WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE amongst other issues. I oppose an IBAN with GorillaWarfare because GorillaWarfare opposes such.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Note: I have topic-banned User:Willwill0415 from "articles and discussions related to gender-related movements, controversies and disputes" (see details and rationale). I have done so as an individual, uninvolved admin under the discretionary sanctions approved by arbcom's GamerGate case decision. If, as some have proposed, the community believes that a stronger sanction is desirable the above discussion can continue till consensus is reached; my suggestion though would be to give the topic-ban a try. Abecedare (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Blocked "for edit-warring after previous warnings" but I made no edits after the warning

The following discussion is closed. 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 blocked by @Ymblanter: "for edit-warring after previous warnings". The warning was issued at 12:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC), made no edits since, and yet got blocked. (note: I did not break the 3 reverts rule, I asked for third opinion and I was waiting for a response). I believe it is each editor's duty to report any improper actions or even minor errors of administrators if (s)he ever confronts one. On can find the discussion at my [User talk:Τζερόνυμο#September 2018|talk page].Τζερόνυμο (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Τζερόνυμο. Although I sympathise with your position, I recommend that you read WP:EDITWAR. In particular, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". The 3RR is one indication of edit warring, however it is not a definition of it. I assume that you were blocked for your behavior prior to being given the warning, rather than after it. William Harris • (talk) • 10:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning William Harris •. I tried to explain why it was not an edit war in my Talk Page, though I understand why others can have a different opinion. Nevertheless, this is not the point here. The main argument is that I was told that I was warned, I did not edit a single time since the warning, and yet, I got blocked after previous warnings. Doesn't make sense and I want to make sure that this is not a normal practice. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is the wording of a standard "block" template that was dropped onto your Talk page - perhaps an administrator might now further enlighten us on that. William Harris • (talk) • 10:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I had a quick look at this. Firstly, Ymblanter didn't say which article you were edit warring on, so I have to assume it was the slow-burning edit war on Criticism of Christianity. However, the article was full-protected by Dlohcierekim around the time of the block, so in my opinion a block was unnecessary and superfluous. In general, we block after no post-warning edits because we don't trust that an editor will stop edit-warring even after warning, often given previous behaviour or a look at their track record. (I'm not saying that's what happened here, just explaining the reason why admins might consider it). However, Ymblanter said you were welcome to contest the block and he would not contest any overturning of it; you appealed and your appeal was successful (albeit because no admin got round to looking at it before the block expired). Elsewhere, there is a proposal Wikipedia:Community health initiative on English Wikipedia/Per-user page, namespace, and upload blocking, and once that's implemented it means you shouldn't ever get a full block in this sort of situation. All in all, I think everyone was talking a bit at cross purposes, and I don't think Ymblanter has any issue with you being unblocked now, I think it's best we put the issue to bed and move on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Might be worth putting in a one-second block so that the log will show that the previous appeal was accepted. Otherwise it just looks like a big permanent red mark that will be used against this editor later. Reyk _YO! 11:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, William Harris, there was no 3RR violation here - you need to have made 4 or more reverts within 24 hours. Look at the dates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

At no stage did I say there was a 3RR violation. I was elaborating on the policy. William Harris • (talk) • 11:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Quadruple (edit conflict) with Ritchie333, you're killing me here. The standard block template, or any template, should not be used if its wording is not appropriate; by using the template, Ymblanter took responsibility for what it says. I don't think it would have killed him to acknowledge that, rather than giving the user a runaround when they complained.[226] Τζερόνυμο did receive an edit warring warning in May 2018, but that's probably not what Ymblanter is referring to. Anyway, that warning was a warning, not warnings. Ymblanter suggested Τζερόνυμο should post an unblock request in the usual way, which they did, but the block was only for 31 hours, and expired before an uninvolved admin came to the page to evaluate it. If it had been me, I would have unblocked, rather than refer to our slow bureaucracy for evaluating a 31-hour block. It seems to me this user has got the short end of the stick, and there should be a note in their previously clean block log that the block had not been preceded by a warning. Ritchie333, you say Ymblanter said he would not contest any overturning of the block. Where did he say that? I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I read "You are welcome to post an unblock request as detailed in the above notice, it will be evaluated by an uninvolved administrator" as indicating he was okay with an unblock. Or at least, that's how I work when I recommend someone I blocked file an unblock request. I don't disagree with your view that Ymblanter should not have blocked and the block puts an unwelcome stain on a perfectly good editor - I totally agree with it; I just think the best option is to resolve to do better next time, rather than beat up Ymblanter for "admin abuez". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me suggest to us all - aggrieved editor included - that we should now be looking at what the editor's record should read, rather than us chasing after over-worked and under-pressure admins. William Harris • (talk) • 11:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• (From the train) Indeed, I blocked Τζερόνυμο for edit-warring in Criticism of Christianity which I believe was the only article they were active in for the time being. I was responding at a RFPP request, and, after looking at the edit history, came to the conclusion that blocks are the best solution. At the same time, Dlohcierekim came to the conclusion that protection is the best solution. This is fine, we are among the most active admins and respect each other decisions, though we do not always agree. We conflicted; when I started looking at the article it was not yet protected. Indeed, blocks AND protection are clearly too much, and after Dlohcierekim learned bout the blocks they decided to lift the protection, and the blocks stood. In the hindsight, I see that I could have communicated better to Τζερόνυμο what article I was talking about (I guess they understood here anyway) and what warning I was talking about (I meant indeed the May warning about edit-warring). It is unfortunately that they were unblocked only after the block expires, but were they unblocked in time I would not contest the unblock. I am generally a supporter of the second opinion strategy in doubtful cases. If Τζερόνυμο raised the warning issue immediately after the block when they communicated with me, I would definitely clarified what warning I meant. They have chosen instead to take me to ANI after the unblock, however, I still believe the block was good.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

  Blocking was indeed quite reasonable as they were the two warriors disrupting. I unprotected so the other 5,000,000 Wikipedists would no longer be encumbered. I considered blocking, but wanted to give them a chance to stop on their own. BTW, these are experienced users who know better. I find coming here to complain about it after the disruption they caused even more disruptive. They both bloody well knew better than to edit war and I think were both beyond the point where blocking was understandable and shouldn't have expected to continue until someone said, "Oh, pretty please, do stop with sugar on top."-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

That is not correct. Τζερόνυμο used the talk page. He got a third opinion. He only reverted when he thought he had consensus. This isn't some mad edit warrior going "revert", "revert", "revert", "revert". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: "If Τζερόνυμο raised the warning issue immediately after the block when they communicated with me, I would definitely clarified what warning I meant." No, they did raise it immediately after the block when they communicated with you, saying "I have not reverted or undone anything, after a previous warning was issued at 12:02, 26 September 2018". Clearly they didn't know you were talking about the May warning, and you did not clarify it in your reply. (Did you even actually think of that warning at the time of the block?) Yes, it is unfortunate that they were "unblocked" only after the block expired, i. e. they weren't unblocked at all. But then that often happens with short blocks, which is the reason I said that if I'd been you, I would have unblocked by myself. Now we have a dubious block and a user has a block in their previously clean block, with nothing logged about an unblock, as well as a dubious block notice on their page. I don't think this is an ideal way to treat users who are clearly doing their best. It's likely to leave them with the impression that admins will never admit fault, and other admins will always have their back. And no, Dlohcierekim, it's hardly disruptive to take it to ANI. Users are allowed to do that. I think you're a fine admin , Ymblanter, but I don't think these actions and this resulting combination of circumstances show you at your best. I ask you to put a note about the lack of warning, and the potential unblock, in Τζερόνυμο's log. Bishonen | talk 18:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

Yes, I checked the warnings and I blocked because of the May warning, otherwise I would have just warned. Ok, indeed, it looks I misunderstood what they were saying. Note however that the unblocking admin, Huon, rejected the explanation that the user just followed the dispute resolution procedures.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I noted it, and I did not claim Τζερόνυμο was white as snow. That's not my point. Please consider my request, instead of electing to be outraged by the user's failure to apologize. I really don't see him behaving outrageously in any of his comments after the block, so please don't take the path of outrage, as you do below. Please turn back, and take your own misunderstandings into account. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I am not sure what is expected of me now. I can not unblock anymore. I do not expect the user to apologize.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I see now. No, I am sorry. I blocked because of the May warning. I would have likely block again, but would unblock if I understood the complaint of the user properly.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I can add the link to this discussion with my comments.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I am astonished! I followed the flow-chart for disputes, tried not to break any 3RR, not even by proximity, I asked twice for 3rd opinion, though I was accused of edit warring after "warnings" (there was a warning some months ago, is it still valid for any suspected edit warring? If the answer is yes, what is the need of another edit warning?). And when came here to report a minor incidence I thought fallacious (which I think there must be a way to report trivialities) I am accused of disruption along with ironic comments? Sorry for questioning the acts of admins, but I am not that experienced user to know that I shouldn't report admin's action when I think they are wrong. Plus, why I got here, actually I didn't know where to report the incidence and so I asked the Help Desk (diff or see here). @Ymblanter: no hard feelings, it is not personal, I just didn't get what was going on with the warnings. Plus, I didn't get whether I was unblocked or not. Next time, hopefully never but who knows, will I be blocked for more than 31h? If, or when I apply for administrator, will this be a black stain in my record? (trying to be friendly here) Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you now say you have never broke any policies in this episode, and I just abused the tools by blocking you without any factual violation? This is indeed how I understood your message right after the block. I disagree with this description of the situation, and this is why I did not unblock you. (If instead you have said "Sorry, I went too far, but next time will not do it" I would most likely unblocked, but this is irrelevant now).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I say that I did not break any rule, but I understand why many good willing third parties may think by looking at the history, that I actually broke the Reverting policy. That's why I did not complain in here for the edit-war, but only for the warning. I moreover understand that by saying "sorry" I would probably got unblock, but I would be a hypocrite as I don't think so. I think it doesn't really matter, but let me explain once more: I have never reverted a certain edit more than 3 times. There were two separate edits/material that the one followed the other after a period of a couple of days. The first dispute was resolved with a third opinioner. The second dispute was -and still is- waiting for a third opinioner. As I understand the rules and the policies, I didn't break any of them (I understad that I may not know the policies very well) But I understand that if you just look at the history log....it definitely looks as edit war. Ok, that was my last edit in here, unless someone asks me specifically to clarify something. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Τζερόνυμο: One short block for edit warring is not going to affect an RfA. It's really not a big deal. It may well be used as an aggravating factor if continued edit warring behavior is ever reported, unless Ymblanter chooses to update your block log as has been requested. @Ymblanter: I'm not sure where you're getting that. I think it's clear that they're just saying they tried to do the right thing, made a conscious effort to pursue dispute resolution and avoid crossing the brightline, and also that it doesn't make sense to block for breaching a months-old warning when somebody else has already re-warned them, which they had listened to. (Swarm ♠ talk) 19:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess I see the point now. I blocked Τζερόνυμο at 12:03, without seeing the warning by Dlohcierekim, which they left at 12:02, but only logged the block at 13:01. I do not know now why, but the whole this week I was on a research visit, probably someone just came to talk to me and I decided I will log the block later. This is clearly not ok. If I blocked it right away, I would have edit-conflicted with Dlohcierekim, I would have noticed the warning, and likely understood the context of the whole discussion. In the future, I will try to avoid the situation when I potentially can not log the block (or the protection) immediately. Clearly my fault here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: when you tell the user, a little higher up on this page, that "If instead you have said 'Sorry, I went too far, but next time will not do it' I would most likely unblocked", I did take it as resentment that the user argued instead of apologizing, yes. You have responded to me, also higher up, that "I am not sure what is expected of me now. I can not unblock anymore". What I've been asking you repeatedly to do is make a one-second block in order to add a comment about the now expired block, to acknowledge that it was dubious, and yes, why not with a link to this discussion. But I think you probably meant that you could add such a link on the user's page, or something like that? Please could you tell me unambiguously that you will, or will not, annotate the block log? And please consider that people tend to assume far too easily that a block no longer matters when the user is no longer blocked. It does matter. People take their block logs seriously. Not me, I'm proud of mine, but you see Τζερόνυμο is worried about his, especially since he's considering running for admin in the future. I agree with Swarm that a short edit warring block shouldn't matter in an RFA; but I've seen frequently that it does. (BTW, Ymblanter, you did log the block at 12:03, one minute after Dlohcierekim's warning. The reason the block notice says 13:00 is that you didn't subst it, so AnomieBOT did — at 13:00.) Bishonen | talk 20:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

For me, blocks are serious business. I am not against a one second block saying that block resulted from an adit conflict with a warning, and I would possibly not blocked if I have seen the warning. But I would like to first see that there is if not consensus that such a short block is acceptable at least no consensus that it is not acceptable. There are some users who would be happy to report me to ArbCom for misuse of admin tools, should they find any.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Very well, I'm tired of going on and on about it, I'll annotate the log myself. I'm sorry you find my arguments unpersuasive; I won't repeat them further. As for "misuse of admin tools", surely the world isn't as black and white as that. I'm not accusing you of "misusing admin tools". We've all made dubious blocks, no doubt. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

I am sorry that we did not manage to hear each other in this episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Done. Bishonen | talk 20:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

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

Patrick Bet-David

The following discussion is closed. 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 requested page protection but we have a fierce IP edit warring commentary into a BLP. Would an admin please protect this? thx. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hrs. Clearly disruptive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 IP user nagging to remove picture(s) of Mohammed

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

---

Hi, I previously sought advice on IRC what to do about a certain IP user. He is currently demanding removal/renaming of a picture of Mohammed (File:maome.jpg) at Helpdesk/Humanities. He used the following IPs there: 1, 2.

On the file's talk page User:AstroLynx advised me that it might be the guy who clogged several talk pages on Islamic Calendar, have a look at the RFC result on this archived page: 3. And sorry that I tried to reason with him for quite some time. 2.247.240.207 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The same IP editor (Special:Contributions/78.145.21.69) is edit-warring at Conquest of Mecca over the date of the event.

1. 17:48-18:51, 27 September 2018 altered date
2. 11:32, 28 September 2018 altered date
3. 15:40, 28 September 2018 altered date and added source that did not support his/her edit
4. 13:27, 29 September 2018 altered date and added two sources that do not support his/her edit

He/she was warned about edit-warring on 17:28, 28 September 2018

There is an attempt to discuss the issue at Talk:Conquest of Mecca#Date conflicts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the date conflict at Conquest of Mecca, the IP editor is now using the article talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

"Taslimson Foundation"

Recently there's been instances of IP users adding references to a "Taslimson Foundation" without any merits to the article - and seems to be straight up false information. Alternatively, adding ref tags saying nothing except "Taslimson Foundation"

False info : [227], [228], [229]

Ref tags : [230], [231], [232]

I strongly suspect a PR SEO spam. Juxlos (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

There's something going on here, though I'm not sure what. It doesn't seem severe enough to need an edit filter as there are no current results for "Taslimson" in mainspace; the IPs also don't seem to be in a clear range. The last diff is your own removal of this spam; it was added in this diff. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Famartin

I am having a dispute with user:Famartin. I disagree with the notion that red leaves on Norway maples are atypical, and so I provided a source which tells that the amount of red leaves is related to the health of the plant, so damaged trees and dying trees have some amounts of red leaves. In the tree's native range it is quite typical to see damaged branches, and old or dying trees. However, not even this was acceptable to Famartin who simply reverts me. Could other editors please have a look at this? I am not interested in engaging in an edit war with this editor.--Berig (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The only source provided by Berig indicated that the amount of red in the foliage was related to tree health. It indicated nothing about the propensity towards red in fall foliage. All other sources indicate typical fall foliage is yellow. Famartin (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

What dispute resolution did you try before posting here? --92.21.174.27 (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Berig, this is a routine content dispute, and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. We deal with behavioral issues here. The first step is for you to discuss the matter with Famartin and other interested editors at Talk:Acer platanoides. There has been no discussion at all there for a long time. If you cannot come to a consensus agreement on the article talk page, then there are several forms of dispute resolution available. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What did anti-trousers redirect to before deletion?

The following discussion is closed. 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 came across a discussion thread mentioning it, and couldn't help being curious. I don't think WP:REFUND is the right place for this since I don't intend to "work upon" the redirect in any way. 128.62.53.226 (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Pantlessness, which is also no longer visible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

What the fuck would either of those articles be about? Anti-pants? What even? --Tarage (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It's obviously about WP articles dropped from my watchlist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantlessness for the debate that led to the deletion of a bad article and many implausible redirects. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

As one of the admins who had to clean up the shitheap Neelix bequeathed us, I can assure you that this was by no means the worst example of his obsessiveness and total disregard for notability standards. Try this if you want a taste of what his "Google it and call every hit a source" pseudoarticles looked like; if you want a feel for what it was like to be one of the admins working on it, this is the final page of his "deleted page creations" log; it's a sample of around 100 entries of the 80,000 redirects he created, each of which had to be manually checked and a decision made whether it should be kept or deleted. He remains the only editor in the history of Wikipedia to have his own deletion crtierion. ‑ Iridescent 22:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) For some reason I bookmarked the Neelix drama explosion at this very noticeboard. Students of the project's institutional history with time to spare for past drama are advised to enjoy. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

His contributions on Commons after his defenestration from en-wiki also make eyebrow-raising reading. ‑ Iridescent 23:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Good lord... I would have 100% voted for his blocking. That's unacceptable as all hell, especially in current times. --Tarage (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Picking a favorite is certainly a daunting prospect, but so far my favorite is Commons:Category:Purple_dildos. He crazy. EEng 01:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you see the image of Missy Monroe in there? I've never seen a facial expression that so clearly asked "What the hell am I doing with my life?" as that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not see the image of Missy Monroe, because I was afraid to click on the category in the first place. I don't want to turn to stone. EEng 01:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience that such sights do not turn a man to stone, no matter what his wife says. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

For those without admin goggles. This picture graced the page on pantlessness. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Never was there a picture that less needed to be captioned "Computer Science Club". ‑ Iridescent 07:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but coding is hip now. This is obviously the chess club. EEng 20:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In fact, on closer inspection I think the one in the green tie is Neelix (he, inevitably, created a Commons category for photos of himself and added himself alongside Justins Trudeau and Bieber in Category:21st-century men of Canada, and this guy certainly looks similar). ‑ Iridescent 07:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of Neelix, (yeah, I wasn't around at the time, but I've learned about this debacle) does anyone know if WP:X2, the other temporary criterion for speedy deletion (WP:X1 was for Neelix redirects) is still used? Is it time to deprecate that? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 01:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it well past time to deprecate the use of the word "deprecate"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hell no. We still use it in software engineering all the time. --Tarage (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

In the last 40 years there's been a sea change in the use of the phrase sea change [233]. EEng 11:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• What's with his obsession with boobies? How can you seriously create a redirect called Booby Cyst????💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 12:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

13 reverts in 16 days, POV pushing IP hopper shows no signs of stopping

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

---

An IP hopper from Atlanta is edit warring to insert unsourced material based on POV (sometimes removing sourced stuff too) at Human overpopulation. Here is their latest edit[234]. Here are some edit summeries to show the POV [235][236][237]. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 weeks. Didn't block the latest IP, since it apparently doesn't prevent much of anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Marcos FTO

The following discussion is closed. 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 reporting, for genre warring, Marcos FTO (contributions)

• 21 September 2018
• 1 October 2018
• 2 October 2018
• 2 October 2018
• 2 October 2018

He has been warned four or five times the past few months about making unsourced changes to the genre field of the infobox, but his edits since the final warning in September appear to have often been the same kind of changes, when he has been active. The above are just a few recent examples. Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes ma'am. Blocked for a little while. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm male lol Dan56 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Genres AGAIN??? EEng 05:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we delete genres as well? Blackmane (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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

COI SPA editor making retaliatory mass deletions from other articles because they can't get their way on the COI article

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

---

• Luluplatz (talk · contribs)

Luluplatz is an SPA (and an obvious COI) on Cheryl Studer, and has been edit warring on the article for the past 1.5 years. When uncited material was removed from the article, s/he started making mass deletions on other opera singer articles in retaliation, and is doing so now. I'm reporting this now before it gets out of hand. The editor needs to be blocked before the deletion spree goes on much longer. I'm sorry I don't have time for diffs -- please just check the contribs for the moment. Softlavender (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

By their own admission, these edits are WP:POINTy, thus disruptive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Further info: The Cheryl Studer article has been mainly written, mostly without citations, by three obvious COI SPAs, who have edit-warred to preserve their edits. The editors in question are:

• Gcdea (talk · contribs) (multiple usertalk warnings about the article)
• Goustaff (talk · contribs) (blocked for behavior at the article)
• Luluplatz (talk · contribs) (edit warring on the article for the past 1.5 years)

The accounts may all be the same editor, as there is a break of about 1.5 years between the stop of one account and the start of the next. Luluplatz, the latest SPA, has been fighting against the removal of uncited material which has been tagged and left uncited for years. They have been given multiple lengthy explanations about the need for citations, but they don't listen, and instead they edit war, complain endlessly on various talkpages, and now are engaging in mass deletions from a variety of unrelated opera-singer articles. Softlavender (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyone object if I hand them an ultimatum? They seem to have stopped for now.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we may need to weigh options. Their behavior for the past 1.5 years has been exhaustingly disruptive. They clearly are not WP:HERE. They may need a topic ban from Cheryl Studer and/or from opera singers in general. I would like to hear from the editors who have been forced to deal with them: Wehwalt, Voceditenore, Gerda Arendt, Michael Bednarek, DMacks, Ssilvers, for starters. Softlavender (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I went to revert, but Softlavender beat me to it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Remind me what article I dealt with them on.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: [238]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think it was unusual at the time. We get similar disputes on the R&H musical articles. I didn't research the editor's contributions or anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

How about "As I stated before, you act as an arbitrary and capricious arbiter around here. Go ahead, enjoy your little kingdom. And please never, ever remove any edits I may make elsewhere on Wikipedia or you will be reported for harassment and abuse" [239]? -- Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Taking offense would be descending to their level. Since I often revert unsourced changes, it's not the first time someone has said something like that to me. I tend to let it pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This latest deletion spree involving 7 articles is incredibly disruptive, and frankly, I'm not holding out a lot of hope that this editor will change. They indulge in both rapid-fire and slow edit-warring and are more than likely to be back here in a few weeks. Their standard response to those dealing with problems in their editing (text or images) is to accuse them of "editorial abuse" or being "arbitrary and capricious", or both, e.g. [240] [241], [242], [243]. They also edit-warred at Renée Fleming to insert a confected controversy with the edit summary on the first revert "Singer made false, ignorant, misleading statement thus warranting correction". Needless to say, the singer's "ignorance" concerned a role that Cheryl Studer had sung before Fleming. When a possible COI with Studer was brought up at Talk:Renée Fleming, they said, amongst other things, "I don't owe you any justifications for how I choose to participate on Wikipedia or on what topic(s) of personal interest. Are we clear?" UGH! I'm in favour of Dlohcierekim's ultimatum and a prompt indef block if it happens even once after that final warning. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indef block. This is a deliberately disruptive editor who does not even pretend to listen to advice or policies, and is focused only one goal: to promote Cheryl Studer, without citations. 1.5 years of this nonsense is enough. Softlavender (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block. As Softlavender says, this user has embarked on a path of vandalism to many articles as they pitch a hissy fit about not getting their way on Cheryl Studer. They need to step off until such time as they bother to learn some of the core principles of the encyclopedia and promise to follow them.Jacona (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• By the way, still edit-warring; reported just now at ANEW: [244]. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  I've blocked the account for 24 hours while this is discussed. Fish+Karate 14:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  And Dlohcierekim has overridden my block with a 60 hour block. Either way, the important thing is the user is blocked to prevent further disruption. Fish+Karate 14:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) <<dammit. I did not see F ad K blocked>>> I have temporarily blocked in light of non response to the ANI notification or my warning on their talk page with resumption of edit warring after both notices. Feel free to unblock if so inclined.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  back to 24 hours.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, but they'll be back with more disruption! They promised, after they replaced their still uncited laundry list into the article and it was reverted; see their new parting shot on the talkpage of the article: [245] "I am not going away either". -- Softlavender (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef btw, the link Softlavender supplied just above is enough. Indefinite does not mean infinite and if the user can recognise that they're being problematic then the block can be lifted. Until then, they can stay blocked and we can all get back to our tedious and unnecessary exercises in abject hypocrisy. Fish+Karate 15:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  Hell, I need all the exercise I can get. And tedium as well.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's no point in leaving this open any longer; individual admins block disruptive editors like this with no discussion all the time. Blocked indef, we'll see if a believable and productive unblock request is forthcoming. Or, if instead they decide to keep this up, let an admin know if a new SPA starts editing that article and point them to this discussion, and we'll see if we can nip this in the bud next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support indef block Per above discussion. --RAF910 (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Indef. Dlohcierekim's WP:AGF is a source fo great credit, but speaking as a cynical old bastard I think this user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, but instead to make money from others' efforts. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Persistant addition of unsourced information by User:Cavalry.charger

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

---

• Cavalry.charger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been warned multiple times since they joined in 2016 about citing sources,

• friendly message on10 July 2016
• level 1 warning on 2 December 2017
• Level 2 warning on 21 March 2018
• 2nd level 2 warning on 11 June 2018
• another level 1 warning on 3 September 2018
• level 3 warning on 3 September 2018
• multiple level 4 warnings on 3 September 2018]

This was after they recreated Pasir Panjang Power Station despite my having draftified it as being unsourced here They complained about this here User_talk:Domdeparis#Chill_Bruh. and when I explained to them the need for sourcing they replied Forreels man people are free to edit and improve the page so let it be bruh. As they seemed to have no intention of abiding by WP:VERIFIABILITY I gave them a final warning and then checked out their previous edits and removed the unsourced additions giving them template overload to be sure the message had got through here They removed the level 4 warnings and disappeared for a couple of weeks but their first and only edit since was another unsourced addition here. I think administrator intervention is the only way to get through to them. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This doesn't seem hopeful, but the user hasn't edited in two weeks so there doesn't seem to be much that we can do at the moment. I suggest making a new report if they start editing again, so that we can try to address it while they're around. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As Ivanvector stated above, this account hasn't edited since September 19 - taking action now wouldn't be acceptable. A report should be filed if the user continues to add unsourced content and during the time that it is in progress and actively occurring, so that action can be taken and within compliance of Wikipedia's blocking policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Ivanvector: and @Oshwah: duly noted, I'll keep my beady little on their edits. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis - Cool deal. You know where to find me if you need me to take another look at this matter - don't be afraid to leave me a message if such is needed :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks User:Oshwah I'll do that. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

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

SanAnMan

User:SanAnMan (talk) reverted an edit I made to an article for an episode of South Park, which appears to be one of this user's areas of interest. I engaged with the user on their talk page attempting to discuss precisely how, in their view, my edit violated policy. When I said they weren't being specific, the user said it was "blatantly apparent [I] just want to argue" and that I should stop leaving messages. When I said that that wasn't constructive and suggested dispute resolution, they simply decided to remove any messages I leave. Could someone step in and say this behaviour is not acceptable? ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like he would be open to dispute resolution, but there are options that don't require his participation, such as starting a request for comments. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not ideal - the RFC page says "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others". If someone refuses to make such a reasonable attempt, is this not a conduct issue? And if not, I consider my edit just a minor improvement rather than a full-scale rewriting of the page; an RFC seems overblown. Would you still recommend RFC in this context? I'm willing to go ahead with it there really aren't any other options. --92.21.174.27 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You could post to the article's talk page, wait a few days for a response, and see what happens. If nothing comes of it, I think a request for comments would be justified. If there were problems after that, it would more clearly be a conduct issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll do that. ----92.21.174.27 (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Hello, I'm going to attempt to clear up what I believe is a very foggy and incomplete situation here. Let's start from the beginning. The article Stunning and Brave was first edited by User:79.75.139.38 on April 6, 2018. This IP-only user had made no previous edits prior to this, and I deemed the addition of the content to the article to be in violation of policy at WP:TVPLOT and WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. As a side note, it is unfortunately rather common to have to revert edits such as this by one-time IP-only editors for this same reason on many television episode pages, and these policies are in fact specifically mentioned in the talk page of the article. This edit was then reverted by User:85.211.212.153 in August 2018 (4 months later), so at the time, I had no way of knowing if this was the same editor or not. That reversion was again reverted by me, this time in the edit summary explaining that the edit was in violation of TVPLOT. It was at this time that User:85.211.212.153 left the first message on my talk page asking for further explanation. In an effort of good faith, I replied with the key lines out of the policy exactly what he had violated. His response was to state that I should "specify what (I) objected to in (his) edit". Again in good faith, I eventually replied with more specific details, again using the text from the policy as guideline. His response was that he wanted to break down point-by-point his additions. I am just another editor, and I did not feel it was my responsibility to try to teach and/or explain in specific detail WP policy that is clearly written, and yes, I did feel that at this point he was kind of beating a dead horse, so yes, I replied and asked him specifically to not message me directly again, and since I felt there was no point in continuing the conversation I removed the thread.

Now here's where it gets more interesting and convoluted. He eventually contacts me again but this time as User:92.21.174.27, the third different IP from what I now concluded was the same person (79.75.x.x, 85.211.x.x, and now 92.21.x.x). The IP-hopping from three different networks raised my radar here, and that's when I began digging a little deeper. The very first edit made by 92.21.174.27 was to modify the user talk page of User:94.197.120.175. That particular IP address (94.197.x.x) has been range-banned and blocked for 6 months since September 25, 2018. That same date, coincidentally enough, is the date that User:94.197.120.175 made that first edit. I also found it rather unusual that a relatively-new IP editor would already know how to do such things as API, piping links, and other such details which are generally not as easily gleamed by most relatively-new IP-only editors (my opinion here).

In summary, I firmly believe that not only did I act in good faith towards User:85.211.212.153 by 1) directing him to the WP policy in question in the reversion itself, 2) quoting him directly the section of the WP policy that the edit was in violation thereof, and 3) further explaining the details of his edit in contrast to the policy, but I have high reason to suspect that User:92.21.174.27 may in fact be IP-hopping to avoid the range ban mentioned earlier. I think we may possibly be being played here. I thank you for your time and attention. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, there's always going to be an opposing point of view in any conflict. First, I'd point out that IP addresses frequently change outside of a person's control. It doesn't necessarily mean anything that someone uses many different IP addresses. I understand that it may seem suspicious to see IP editors who are familiar with wikicode and obscure processes, but some of them have been editing anonymously for years without being disruptive. These IP editors may indeed become caught in range blocks, but it doesn't necessarily mean the range block was meant for them. If someone is being polite and trying to engage with you, it's unlikely they're an LTA vandal who makes threats. (This seem to be what the range block was for.)

Second, I know it's frustrating to deal with people who may want to expand plot summaries beyond the recommended limits (or in ways the guidelines discourage), but there's occasionally going to be some degree of discussion necessary. Sometimes it helps if you address their questions and concerns. Someone may be trying to see things from your point of view but need help understanding where you're coming from. Once you find a better way to explain yourself, you might quickly find consensus in your favor. If you're finding it frustrating or tedious, sometimes WP:DRN helps. Or go to an RFC and let uninvolved consensus rule. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about the IP hopping possibly being just a coincidence and possibly out of a user's control, but as a person who actually works in the IT profession (it's my RL job), I still find it highly unusual that one user would hop across three different networks. If the IP had changed within a certain range, that would have made more sense to me. It's also still highly suspect to me that when he changed his IP to 94.21.174.27 that the very first post made from that IP was to modify the talk page of another IP account that had been long-term blocked the exact same day that his IP was first used. Anyways, that's neither here nor there at this point, he's raised his issue on the article's talk page (which, IMO, is where this whole process should have begun from day one) and we'll see what other editors have to say about it. I still feel that I did my honest in good faith best to try to answer his questions to the best of my ability. I appreciate your candor and feedback. It's admins like you that make this place a little better for all of us. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I should probably respond to your detective work, @SanAnMan:

User:79.75.139.38, User:85.211.212.153 and User:92.21.174.27 are indeed all me; apologies if there was any confusion about that, but I thought given my editing patterns it would have been obvious to any observers that that was the case. I don't think I can explain the 'network hopping' because I don't really know what you mean by that, they are just dynamic IP addresses assigned to me by my ISP.

I have not, however, edited as User:94.197.120.175. That did become my IP address when I was using Wikipedia from my mobile phone on the bus home from work. I'd forgotten I wasn't at home, and wanted to check my talk page to see if there were any further developments in this dispute. When I observed the prior vandalism emanating from the IP address, and the subsequent blocks, I thought it would useful for observers to understand it was a dynamic IP and not a single vandal. By the time I submitted my edit, however, I'd arrived home and connected to my WiFi again. If there was a block applied to that IP address on the exact same day it was assigned to me, then that's just coincedence.

So, no suspicion necessary. I'm not a vandal, just a reasonably-experienced anonymous editor with a dynamic IP address.

As for raising the issue on the article's talk page - if that was what you wanted me to do in the first place, why didn't you say so? I contacted you directly because you were the only involved editor. I'm still somewhat upset about your refusal to engage with me on your talk page - I think the above suspicion of me being a block-evading vandal shows you are/were not assuming good faith in me. Can you please do so going forward? --92.21.174.27 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I can assume good faith with you, however, I have absolutely no further interest in dealing with you directly. You have raised your concerns on the article’s talk page and we will see what other involved editors have to say about it. Please do not contact me on my talk page again. - SanAnMan (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Calton

User has been increasingly belligerent, the user has not assumed good faith, and appears in violation of Civility and Etiquette protocols. This includes bringing up an unrelated incident as part of the discussion on a talk page (which they justified as "how could I miss it?"), failure to discuss the situation at hand on the talk page for Anthony Bourdain, acting unilaterally before consensus was met, and a general animosity-ridden approach to both me and the situation at hand. The user's talk page seems to suggest that this sort of thing has happened with some regularity, and that the user has not addressed these concerns when others have reached out. I don't know if punishment is warranted, but I feel it necessary to alert an admin about this user's behavior.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You just caught a warning at WP:ANEW and now you're going to try to re-litigate it here? This is not gonna turn out well for you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe User:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection. I have vowed not to make any more edits, and have deferred to talk page consensus for the article. I have even apologized for a previous comment. But they have not done any of this, and like I said, I believe that their behavior is in violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I just came from that thread, where I saw you making WP:POINTY edits, casting aspersions on Calton, making demands and incorrectly accusing him of making "ad huminum" arguments, when Calton had never said anything about you at all. In short, I saw a lot of bad behavior on your part, and a bit of patience on Calton's part. I also saw you catch a warning for edit warring (which you deserved) from Drmies, right before you filed this. My advice to you is to erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does citing an unrelated incident from my talk page count as "never [saying] anything about [me] at all"...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Does the advice of two seasoned editors mean anything to you? Drmies (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that "citing an unrelated incident" consisted of Calton saying "And neither is edit-warring, as you found out in June" well before they actually reported you at AIV, I'm gonna go with "Yup." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "erase this whole thread as well as your notification on Calton's talk page quickly, before an admin sees "-- It is-- too late for that.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

RE: "I believe User:Calton's behavior warrants further inspection."-- that's been done. You might wish to withdraw this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism/targeted harassment

Approximately a year ago I was annoyed by the fact that the examples of Twitter bots in the examples section of the Twitter bot wiki page, that all the examples of Twitter bots were inactive, they either didn't exist or were suspended or were inactive; I was annoyed by that and as I have two twitter accounts that are Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) and they're good examples of Twitter bots, in particular @maskchievous as it auto tweets a random meme with a random emojicon and it also regularly auto changes its profile pic, then I thought to myself my Twitter bots are good examples of Twitter bots and so I decided to update the Twitter bot wiki page adding my two Twitter bots (@maskchievous @crowdfundedkill) to the examples section of the wiki Twitter bot page.

My motive for adding content was not for any personal gain, it was solely to make the wiki page better.

The result of me adding content did dramatically improve the Twitter bot wiki page as my Twitter accounts were good examples of Twitter bots and as I've said all the other examples of Twitter bots were inactive Twitter accounts.

Approximately 6 months later user: Audiodude complained saying that he didn't like that persons had added their own Twitter accounts to the Twitter bot wiki page, he was making reference to the content I had added. Audiodude didnt care less that the content I added made that wiki page better, he was just being spiteful. Audiodude later spitefully removed the content I had added.

Audiodude motive for removing the content I had added was malicious, it was done out of spite! It was essentially targeted harassment of me and was vandalism of the wiki page as his motive for removing content was malicious.

The result of Audiodude removing the content I'd added made the Twitter bot wiki page worse! which proves my case!

I contacted Audiodude about this but he denied it and lies claiming he removed the content I added for other reasons but Audiodude is lying as Audiodude had originally made comments referring to the content I'd added saying that he didn't like that the examples of Twitter bots I'd added were my own Twitter accounts but Audiodude couldn't use that reason to remove content so Audiodude invented a reason that would disguise his real motive for wanting to remove the content.

User: Audiodude should be banned. Also the content I added which Audiodude removed should be put back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs) 01:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So... you're annoyed by the fact someone removed your own bots from the page? adding your own bots to the page demonstrates your clear Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It was removed because you did not provide an independent source for it, as clearly said in this edit. Also, please stop calling Audiodude a "vandal" and don't call his removals "vandalism"; comment on content, not on contributors. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, did you read the red notice on the top that clearly says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page"? I have notified them for you but I highly doubt Audiodude is going to get "banned" and your edits re-added. theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. Please also let me know to what extent I need to re-explain or respond. I believe my comments on my talk page speak for my feelings on this. I believe there's no "targeted harassment" because the first time I heard of this editor was when he or she started posting on my Talk Page. —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC) audiodude (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

HardeeHar, you obviously have a glaring conflict of interest regarding this content, and I recommend that you read that link at least three times, thinking about yourself as you read. Then move on to complying with the mandatory paid editing disclosure. Defer to experienced, uninvolved editors at all times. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Still, targeted hatrrassmentharrasent [246] remains a serious problem. EEng 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Lo!—and it was the wikipedian's way to be consumed by assment. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User: I_JethroBT

The user made a personal attack against me, a defamatory, discriminatory and stigmatising attack against me.

The user messaged me in which they refer to me as a "talk page stalker".

Firstly, I'm not a stalker and referring to me as such is defamatory.

Secondly, the 'talk page stalker' wiki page refers to such a person as -

"Talk page stalkers often make very constructive commentary, and should not be confused with wikihiunders. On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life."

As you can see it refers to such a person as being someone that has no life, which is stigmatising and discriminatory when you take into account that I am physically disabled/an invalid and am house bound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HardeeHar (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• You misunderstand. I JethroBT is referring to himself as a talk page stalker. Reyk _YO! 11:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• • Also, heads up to @I JethroBT: Reyk _YO! 11:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I notified I JethroBT at their talk page, like you are supposed to do and were told in the section immediately above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• For anyone who wants to avoid this kind of misunderstanding in the future, you can use {{tpw|safe=yes}}, which produces (talk page watcher). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  Or {{tps|w}} which is even shorter, —PaleoNeonate – 01:46, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• One editor, two frivolous complaints in less than a day. I'm tempted to apply a boomerang... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, after reading this I am of the opinion that this individual should be encouraged to apply their talents in a more appropriate venue than Wikipedia. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Welp, this was a misunderstanding. I probably should just stop using that tps template altogether-- I have to wonder why the term "stalker" caught on for it. Thanks for the suggestion Ivanvector. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 13:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit of harmless fun from the early days, mostly. This discussion might also be enlightening. (I'm not suggesting rehashing it). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector and I JethroBT: See also: [247] GAB^gab 20:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The bit on the Talk Page Stalker page saying “On the other hand, neither are they to be confused with people who have a life." is completely intended to be humorous and not taken seriously. Kindly look at the box on the top of the page saying “This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it too seriously.” Vermont (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe this young lad here may be trying to inform us of a persistent wolf attack... --Tarage (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Interesting claims

@HardeeHar: I noticed these edits in older revisions of your user page. There is a particular wiki page relating to a person I know personally, this person confirmed to me that most of the wiki page about him was BS; he has no control over that wiki page nor did he consent to it and he has publicly disputed the claims about him in said wiki page! News media lied about him and the wiki page sites those lies. this is indeed considered having a conflict of interest in relation to that person's article (see WP:COI for more information). Having an article about us is not always a good thing, especially if it exists because of notability acquired through a controversy. I did not check which article, but please see WP:BLPCRIME, in some cases an article can be deleted). also I've have admins gang up on me bullying me and defame me calling me a stalker, this bullying and name calling clearly an attempt to provoke me into arguing with them so as they could maliciously ban me. Calling standard communication and warnings bullying suggests you may not be here to build the encyclopedia where communication is important for learning and consensus forming (WP:CONSENSUS). In the talk pages of one particular wiki page I have seen contributors openly conspiring to create a blog on which they'll make certain claims, then they would add the claims to the wiki page and cite the blog and claims which they had created! This would be unacceptable per Wikipedia policies (see WP:IRS, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:USERGEN, etc). Basically Wikipedia has its own version of the truth and its own version of what the word proof and credibility mean; it's an interesting website full of alternative facts. This also suggests that your concerns may not be about building an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. —PaleoNeonate – 01:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. 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 find myself stuck in an edit war with The Rambling Man (talk · contribs). A week or so ago he took exception to an edit of mine, and reverted it. I explained my reasons and reinstated the edit. He reverted again, and this has continued, with me suggesting over and over again that we should take the disagreement to some appropriate forum (see István Kovács revision history), and him reverting again and again without discussion, just issuing dire warnings and dark threats. Clearly we aren't going to be able to settle this between ourselves, it will have to go to some forum, but he simply won't co-operate. And he keeps repeating the false claim that 'numerous editors' have told me to stop, and making false allegations that I have 'broken' something, and that I'm 'disrupting Wikipedia'. This is nonsense. It's only TRM who has an issue here. This is shocking behaviour from an admin. Please insist that he must discuss this properly and stop making these false accusations. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, ANI for this? István Kovács (footballer, born 1992) is a one-paragraph article and TRM's offensive edit is diff. The argument appears to concern the wikitext for a link. It must be an important link because each side has reverted the other half a dozen times. TRM is not an admin and winning a battle like this is unimportant. Even if you're right, let it go (that message is for each side). Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• @Colonies Chris: I'm afraid this is squarely a content dispute, which this noticeboard is ill-equipped to handle (and so does not). Basically, though the best way to stop edit-warring is—to stop. Firstly, chew it over on the talk page between yourselves, and, if after discussion you fail to reach a consensus, there are other methods of dispute resultion available: your first would be a fresh set of eyes looking the issue over. If you do think that The Rambling Man has edit-warred, and you think they should definitely be reported for it, then the noticeboard you require is here; although I'd personally advise against it as a course of action. YMMV, of course. All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 11:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• I thought the same thing, but yeah, you know it's got to be important if there is an edit war going on over it./s Not a peep on the talk page either. I agree, let it go, let it flow. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Chris has been told numerous times on his talkpage not to break piped links. You can check his talkpage archives if you want more info. TRM is far from the first person to have to deal with this. Its not content specific. Chris likes to remove piped links without good reason, does this on a variety of articles annoying various editors etc. This has been positioned as a content dispute by Chris when in reality the problem wouldn't exist if they stopped doing disruptive make-work that they already know annoys people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Even more reason, if it's necessary, for them not to go to ANEW I suppose; well, voluntarily, anyway. ——SerialNumber54129 12:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Undeletion of Sandbox

Can an admin undelete this? Thanks. nepaxt 23:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nepaxt: Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. nepaxt 23:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Falling Down

Can an admin take a look at this and take appropriate action, please? I'm going to stay out of the current edit war, but that edit summary should be disappeared. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@TheOldJacobite: I deleted the edit summary. Someone else has already protected the page. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Serial BLP violator IP back again

We've had ongoing problems for months with a very immature IP posting serial BLP violations across a number of Australian conservative politicians. His usual static IP, 110.22.50.32, received a long-term block several weeks ago after countless warnings. He's now editing from a new IP to dodge the block (49.177.138.206) adding rubbish like this. Can we please get a block on 49.177.138.206 as well?

I think it's probably time that his favourite target, Marcus Bastiaan, was permanently semi-protected to put a dampener on it. Might also be an good idea to semiprotect his second-favourite, Matthew Guy, as Guy is two months away from an election and it's probably not a good look to have BLP-violating rubbish repeatedly added to his article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Clearly the same user, new IP now also blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I should also point out, The Drover's Wife, that you're required to notify a user when you discuss them here by posting a message on their talk page. It's kind of a moot point now, but please remember for next time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about extremely clear block avoidance, and regarding an immature kid who pretty clearly enjoys being a nuisance. It only goes here because there doesn't seem to be any clearer means for obvious blocks that aren't overt vandalism. What is the point of adding more rigamarole to the process of dealing with him when (from his responses every other time we've done this) it just seems to serve as further encouragement to keep it up? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you what the rule is: when you start a discussion about an editor here, you notify them on their talk page. There are very few admin-attention pages on Wikipedia which have a requirement like this, and they are all the same: when you report, you notify. There's no exception for clear disruption: there would be no agreement on how disruptive a user should be before invoking the exception, and probably not even a broad agreement on how you would even measure disruption for that purpose. And I'm not trying to get you in trouble, I'm really just reminding you, like I do with anyone who reports here and forgets to notify the editor they're reporting. So, like I said: please remember for next time. I'm sure this user will not have any success trying to find an administrator to unblock them on this technicality, but it's happened before. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism, including libel

Eric Carmen page is being vandalized repeatedly by an IP and a user name to include libel. Can someone help me stop this? Ip IP edits are 69.54.63.217 and user edits, almost word for word, is Cherrykid6. Both IP and user notified of this incident. P37307 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page for a week to start with.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thor's Axe WP:IDHT WP:RGW and edit warring

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

---

• Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Transition from Ming to Qing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive993#Flaring tempers over Chinese history
• 26 September 3RR case resulting in 48 hour block

I'm a bit sad that it's come to this already, but this new user, whose edits are restricted to articles about the transition between the Ming and Qing dynasties refuses to listen to advise from Kleuske and myself and is now over the WP:3RR brightline for the second time on Transition from Ming to Qing. The crux of the matter appears to be a WP:RGW devotion to documenting military rape and bride-taking by Manchu forces during the wars of the Ming-Qing transition; however it's led to frequent issues with WP:NPA against Opasney (here's an example), a complete failure to assume good faith, a lot of WP:IDHT toward my frequent attempts to explain the concept of consensus to them and, of course, serial edit warring. This user was already blocked for 31 hours for previous edit warring on this article, and appears not to have learned their lesson. In addition, while they were subject to the attentions of a notorious joe-jobber while blocked, they did admit to creating a second account "as a backup" though they haven't broken WP:SOCK yet. I didn't want to WP:BITE the newbie, but Thor's Axe just won't listen. If the community feels their contributions might still be of use to the encyclopedia, then an indefinite topic ban from the history of China is probably in order so that they can learn how to operate within a consensus model in less personally contentious areas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added some links above including the 26 September 3RR case. When I first saw this it seemed to be a case of Thor's Axe warring to add unsourced information. A typical revert by Thor's Axe is here, and his edit summary is typical of the reasoning he wants us to accept: The version you kept did not reach full consensus, since there is ongoing dispute about its content. When he reverts, he often removes sources added by others. An admin could simply wait until he breaks 3RR again and then issue a longer block, since he appears oblivious to actual consensus. Normally we might consider article protection as an option, but I wouldn't favor that here, since he appears to be the cause of the problem. If I am the closer, I'm considering a much longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they're already over WP:3RR today. I only brought it here instead of WP:3RR/N because of the WP:RGW, WP:NPA and WP:IDHT elements to the situation which compound the edit warring and WP:OWN tendency. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

An additional note: if this user wasn't brand new, I'd probably be asking for a long-term block. About the only defense in their favour is that they may simply not understand a lot of Wikipedia's culture. WP:RGW is a pretty easy policy to run afoul of early on, especially when you're sure you're right. I don't think Thor's Axe should be editing Chinese History articles right now, but if there's a chance they could learn to be a better editor in areas where they're not so invested in a specific POV, it might be a reasonable course of action. Of course if the consensus is that it's not worth the trouble, I'm not going to be pushing against a long-term block. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I highly doubt these are new users... Perhaps sockpuppeting should be looked into?

Thor's Axe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Montalk123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

&

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

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

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

Epeyhuza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.244.10.48 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that it's deeply unlikely that Thor's Axe and Opasney are both socks of the same sockmaster considering they've been involved in a substantial content dispute on these pages. Furthermore, I have seen nothing to suggest Opasney is anything other than a decent Wikipedia editor. However if Thor's Axe is actually a sock of an experienced editor then yes, my WP:BITE concerns would go away. Simonm223 (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're the same person. I'm saying they're two different people. Compare the edits by Opasney and Milktaco on each article. All of Opasney's revisions have restored the articles to Milktaco's older versions. And for being "new," Opasney is well aware of Tongolss judging by his edit summaries. Both users have history with each other. Milktaco was originally Rajmaan but did a couple tricks to transfer his edits to Milktaco. As for Thor's Axe, he has the exact same agenda as Montalk123/Tongolss.

Please open a sockpuppet investigations page. Do not provide just a bare list in an ANI, because if there isn't much tying some of these people together, it unfairly drags them into this stuff. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Again I can guarantee that I am not using multiple accounts. Also I would like to explain a bit about my actions. Most importantly I do not think my edits were unsourced. There are links to my edits. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I admit I was a bit emotional. Because I cannot assume the other user Opasney is editing with good faith, since he kept accusing me of lying or fabricating without a valid reason. The very first response of it was not pointed at my comment, but me as an individual. This means there was no discussion from the very beginning, as Op made it into a war straight away. Here is the first response from Opasney to my first edit on talk page. You may check the first few edits on the talk page. I am also frustrated for things to reach this stage. Hereby I claim: I AM WILLING TO STOP EDITING NOW, before a consensus is reached. I will try my best to let that happen and discuss with Opasney. However I also would like Simonm223 or any of the administrator to act as a fair third party in the process. And declare that a consensus is acquired when reasonable for me. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also the dispute between me and Simonm223 is over the definition of a stable version. According to his claim the previous version is stable because it did not trigger debate for a relatively long time. I find this way of determining what is a stable version rather random. Also Kleuske has been talking to me in a very condescending manner on my talk page, using phrases that "I don't give an owls hoot about what you "reviewed" or not." and "Have you not learned anything". I find this deeply offensive and I despise her rudeness. While I agree it is rational to listen to more experienced users, she should communicate properly as a basic. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please kindly note that in my latest edit no sources were removed. This indeed happened in my first few edits before the 48 hours block, but I learned from that and made a compromise. Again I think you misunderstand my good intention because of my apparently aggressively manner of editing, which was largely triggered by the offensive behaviours of Opasney (again he used personal attack, claimed all my points to be lying or fabrications from the beginning to the end and ignored some of my sources).

Again, I can stop the editing now and try to reach a consensus. But with the current situation I think your opinions were a little bit biased against me, since I might have broken some of the rules. I hope you carefully can view the case, and provide the necessary support for me since I do not believe Opasney is editing with good faith. Thor's Axe (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

So basically you assume bad faith with regards to Opasney, claim there is consensus when a cursory glance at the talk-page shows its absence, accuse Opasny (on my talk-page) of "spreading rumour", "personal attacks"and "malicious" editing, flat-out state that Opasny has no right to comment. Moreover, you happily continue edit-warring after your block and somehow take umbrage at my wondering whether you have learned anything from a 31 hrs block and saying I don't give a "owls hoot" about whether or not you "reviewed consensus"? My impression is that you do not understand what WP:CONSENSUS entails, do not understand that the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus, think you WP:OWN the page in question, and seem convinced attack is the best defense (WP:BATTLEFIELD). Not a very promising sign. Kleuske (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is one of the more extreme cases of WP:BATTLEFIELD behaviour I've seen lately in part because it came on so fast and so aggressive with so little provocation. And despite us giving you nearly a day to do so you still haven't self-reverted your breach of WP:3RR from yesterday, which also suggests you haven't really learned from your block. As for our conflict, I came to the page as a neutral party, but it took very little time to see that Opansey was editing in good faith while you were not even attempting to assume good faith - your subsequent behaviour toward me, such as cherrypicking my statements to make false claims that you were basing edits off my suggestions, and edit-warring with me when I attempted to restore the page to its pre-conflict state, is what led to my dispute with you. Simonm223 (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Despite saying they'd learned their lesson Thor's Axe persists in making major revisions deleting reliable sources at Heqin today, editing against WP:BRD immediately. Here's a relevant dif. In addition they've shown serious WP:IDHT tendencies regarding their personal attacks and a lack of self awareness concerning their tendency to characterize any editor who is short with them as attacking them. I don't think they're interested in collaborative work at all. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Another day, another strategy

Today TA is back at it at Heqin and Transition from Ming to Qing, this time not deleting reliable sources but instead inserting WP:WEASEL words like "some historians believe" and "but according to this primary source this was in fact the case." As usual they're cherry-picking advice that suits their agenda and reverting major edits back in contrary to WP:BRD and I'm getting... tired... of playing whack-a-mole. I've asked them to discuss edits constructively at talk over and over; this is especially significant as @Opasney: has said they were misrepresenting information in their preferred primary source to push their POV and they just won't hear that this means they need consensus for insertion. Can some uninvolved editors and / or admins please have a look? I would like not to be in a gatekeeper position here. Simonm223 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

And now this. [248] Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks as they call me a hypocrite for asking them to stop trying to POV push a contested primary source. [249] Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Since Simonm223 has come to this stage, I feel compelled to add more explanation from my side. The situation he describes as weasel words is basically this: there are some books authored making a claim about a fact. Then I found another secondary source having the different opinion, and that book contained some links to a primary source. I then used that primary source because it is a straightforward and simple description of exactly the same event. I am confident that there is NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and the usage of that primary source is consistent with the requirement. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Besides for someone doubting about my hearing ability (when Simonm223 first reverted on 5th Oct he wrote in the edit summary "are you hearing"), I do not think my comment can be considered to be a one-sided personal attack. Thor's Axe (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Formally requesting a block

• Changing my original request After today's back-and-forth with the concomitant WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA and, honestly, WP:CIR issues (textwalls on talk with no indentation despited repeated requests to indent) I no longer think my original request of a t-ban is sufficient. Can somebody please block @Thor's Axe:? (Also, I don't want to be in the position of looking like I feel ownership of the page so I'd really like some third party input on the edits themselves, notwithstanding all the behavioural stuff here.) Simonm223 (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There have been enough IDHT, WP:PRIMARY and WP:OWN issues, accompanied by editing against consensus to reach the conclusion that it may actually be a WP:CIR-issue. I strongly have the impression TA is not used to being contradicted. Kleuske (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Argument Against Block

I do not think Simonm223 and Kleuske are making accusations that stand. So far they reverted all my edits immediately, claiming there to be a lack of consensus. However according to the consensus page of wiki "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus." Thor's Axe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

In this case if they think my edits were not correct their reversion shall be considered as a further edit. However they have never left an explanation related to the topic itself in the talk page. Given this it seems they reverted my edits because they believe a consensus was not reached. However most parts I added on 5 Oct have not yet been contested. Although they keep reiterating the importance of consensus, I do not think their actions are justified. All they have done so far is watching the page and reverting all my edits immediately without a valid reason. I seriously consider this to be a breach of WP:OWN.Thor's Axe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There are claims about my doing original research due to my usage of primary sources. However according to relevant page "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thor's Axe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

All I added was a simple translation of a description of a historical event. I am confident that there is no original research or improper using of primary sources. I wish a third party can verify this part. Thor's Axe (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Close

• This is a mess that should have been addressed a while ago. Being able to read Chinese and understand some of the context, I think I have a reasonable grasp of the situation. I have blocked Thor's Axe indefinitely; my rationale can be found here ([250]). I'll leave this to another editor/administrator to either close the thread or leave it open for potential discussion/review. Alex Shih (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:PAID ; WP:COI

Good morning. I just would like to highlight that I suspect (talk) to violate WP:PAID ; WP:COI to be paid by a competitor company of IONIS Education Group to delete anything concerning this education group and try to influence other users. For me it is quite clear looking of the black log of the user and his history. But I am not sure so I prefer to rely on your opinion. Kind Regards, 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:B5A6:6D4B:CEFE:28CE (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC

• Previous ANIs [251] [252]. Time for WP:BOOMERANG? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 13:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• This has been examined multiple times and found that anonymous IPs are attempting to add promo material on this topic and then when EulerObama reverts their content and restores a NPOV they bring him to ANI. A boomerang might be appropriate, but this is like the 3rd or 4th IP to do this and I'm not sure any kind of block/ban would stop this. I think it may instead be necessary to semi-protect more of these IONIS pages so the IPs cannot keep doing this. IONIS Education Group has already been semi-protected by the admin TomStar81, based on a "long term pattern of WP:COI and WP:PAID based editing." I'm thinking IONIS School of Technology and Management, ESME-Sudria, as well as Institut supérieur européen de gestion group may need this. They are also creating various promo articles that EulerObama is AfDing, but I don't see a good way to stop these IPs from doing that. -Obsidi (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no indication that the POV pushing and the self promotion from the IONIS_Education_Group is ever going to stop, I second the proposal for a long term semi-protection of all the articles directly linked to that company so we can at least control the damage. A good starting point for the articles to protect is the list of all the schools of the group listed here. --McSly (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the ones that have had issues. There are, however, some 40 articles about/linked to the education group in total. Black Kite (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite. --McSly (talk) 01:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I do maintenance on French wikipedia. See : [253]

I have seen how IPs use wikipedia as a means of promotion (false information, inter-wiki spam). We have therefore removed unnecessary items. This way, you can manage the pages easily.

It happens to be one of the few topics that makes spam everywhere (inter-wiki spam) and I thought it was important to clean up English wiki too.--EulerObama (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Briancua

On 22 August in an ANI brought against me by User:Briancua I committed to make an effort to better adhere to conduct policies. Since then I have tried extra hard to be constructive, engaged, civil, and collaborative with all editors. I like to think I have always done this but accept that my performance (while not specifically violating any of the rules) had room for improvement. I didn't think the ANI brought against me by BrianCUA was fair as it seemed to be a deliberate attempt to have me banned from the site because I have consistently bought a degree of challenge to BrianCUA's edits. Nevertheless I accepted the ANI (despite long service) and tried to move on. However, regrettably I feel that while I have made an effort to improve, BrianCUA has not. As an editor they seem to demonstrate a bias towards conservative Catholicism - this can be seen by glancing at the totality of edits which are always aimed at reinforcing a overly-positive perspective both on Catholic teaching as well as organisations relating to the Church (eg the Knights of Columbus. To the extent that article are starting to look skewed and biased. I have set out some examples below. These are by no means exhaustive. I apologise in advance for the length of this but am trying to be as conscientious as I can. I've tried to avoid this turning into a petty tit-for-tat against me and BrianCUA (and you'll see that concerns have been voiced by other established editors) - it's just that I have a genuine concern that the spirit of Wikipedia is not being abided by and I'd just like someone to check if there is an issue. If it's the case that I've been over-cautious then I will accept that. Thank you again for your time.

• Over-turned all edits (WP:EDITWARRING) relating to Knights of Columbus and the Pledge of Allegiance to imply bigger role for the knights than the sources suggest (WP:PEACOCK). No justification given and no attempt to engage with the discussion initiated on the talk-page:

[[254]] Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#Pledge of Allegiance

• I added material on Cardinal Arinze and the rainbow sash and then removed my own material as I didn't think it was appropriate to the article. BrianCua restored the material and has argued that I am not allowed to remove it unless I achieve consensus (no other editor has expressed a view so "consensus" in this case means permission by BrianCua. Followed up with threats on my talk page to have me "banned" if I continued to pursue this point. Additionally the fact that another editor has suggested the stressing of "unity" is tendentious editing:

Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality#Rainbow sash User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior

• Failure to retain WP:CIVILITY when collaborating with other editors. Repeated use of sarcasm, for example "I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here."

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#First usage of Culture of Life

• Repeated rejection of attempts by other editors (Contaldo80, Aquillon, TronVillain) to find a compromise solution in relation to the term "culture of life" in favour of a tendentious approach that asserts usage by the Catholic church is widely understood and accepted:

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks

• Tendentious editing on Catholic Church and homosexuality to give WP:UNDUE prominence in the lead (and main article) to gay rights activists disrupting Catholic masses - opposing the concerns of other editors (including Roscelese). Even though incidences of this were limited and protesting against communion was actually only ever done globally once according to sources cited:

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality#Desecrating

• Concerns raised by a number of editors (including Steeletrap, Johnpfmcguire and Contaldo80) at the repeated "playing of the system" (ie circular citation of Wikipedia rules to frustrate attempts by other editors to make progress on article) which is designed to reinforce tendentious editing relating to a social conservative/ conservative Catholic perspective (especially relating to the issue of homosexuality). Possessive behavior (and inconsistent application of guidance) in relation to articles - which rejects any attempts by other editors to make changes that are seen as a threat to the conservative catholic viewpoint:

Talk:Knights of Columbus#Removal of KoC political activism in the lede Talk:Knights of Columbus#Lead section

• Citing a source that has subsequently been demonstrated as having made a fundamental error in relation to dating, raising concerns around WP:RS. Continuing to insist on using that source without provide a fuller quotation to reassure that the remainder of the material is reliable, despite the fact that other editors have supported this approach as a way forward.

Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus#RFC on quotation marks#First usage of Culture of Life

• Insisting that the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality retains a substantive section in the main article setting out in detail the teaching of the catholic church on homosexuality despite arguments that this unnecessarily duplicates material in other articles, and cherry-picks phrases such as "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided" which more than one editor have agreed is WP:UNDUE. Additionally rejecting solutions aimed at compromise and a desire to "play the system" (arguing that most people wouldn't know the catholic church dislikes homosexuality and therefore a sentence in the lead which is not a commonly accepted fact needs to have substantive supporting material in the main body):

Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

• Admitting that they were WP:HOUNDING me to visit a page not previously visited to specifically over-turn edits I have made.

Contaldo80 (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless someone would like me to, I don't plan to give a point for point response to all of these allegations. I will simply point anyone interested to the relevant talk pages and edit summaries. There you can see extensive discussions where it is clear that not only am I engaging with others, I am making efforts to cite relevant policies and guidelines for all the actions I am taking. There you can also see that it is far from me against the world. There are others who have agreed with me, as well as those who have disagreed. You will also find that, when a dispute seems intractable, I have sought out other opinions from WP:3O and WP:RFC on multiple occasions.

I would like to specifically address the accusations of incivility, hounding, and threatening. I have no doubt that I have made mistakes along the way, but the difs show that none of this is true.

• With regards to incivility, on the occasion in question I didn't mean to come across as incivil, and apologized if I did.
• There was one occasion when I edited an article I typically don't, and Contaldo himself said he was "sure that it wasn't your aim at all to hound me." He then accepted my explaination when I said I wasn't hounding him by saying "No offence taken." In any case, it was one time, and certainly wasn't repeated.
• Finally, I never, ever threatened to ban him (even if I could). In fact, I said the complete opposite: "You often have substantive contributions, so I don't want to see you get banned." --BrianCUA (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone could link into this issue as a matter of some urgency. Most recently BrianCua has overturned wording from the article Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality - see Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Communion wafer versus Eucharist. Despite sources all saying "communion wafer" they have insisted repeatedly on using "Eucharist" which is a loaded term and intended to suggest LGBT activist had committed a major desecration. Thus violating NPOV. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Tapaterra001 - repeated copyvios and other issues

• Tapaterra001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tapaterra001 has added multiple copyvios at Virtual learning environment, even after several warnings and advice from various editors. Please see the recent edit history of Virtual learning environment with multiple revdels. The latest edit ([255]) is again a copyvio: the text after "In the last 10 years, ..." is 1:1 copypasted from the referenced bbcactive.com source ([256]). Previous text in the same edit is also copied, but from another source (the first one). See also User talk:GermanJoe#RD1 requested, where previous revdels have been verified and discussed in more detail.

Aside from the copyvios, other secondary problems are: the user adds non-neutral content based on low-quality sources and doesn't react to any good-faith messages to resolve such issues. GermanJoe (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours, multiple warnings have been given.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I was considering an indef but am a slow worker. If the copyright violating behavior continues, I recommend that the next block be indef with a clear expectation of avoiding copyvio and engaging in talk page discussions as a condition of an unblock. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You are NOT a slow worker. I'm reallyrarely the one to issue a block because by the time I do my homework someone else has usually done it. In this particular case, I've been previously involved, having reverted several of the copyright violations plus RD1 of the edits, so I was ready as soon as I saw them do it once again after a final warning.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Really, or rarely? EEng 20:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The behavior is continuing, despite the multiple warnings and temporary block. See Special:Diff/862383895, a copyvio of http://www.hrpub.org/download/20170228/UJER25-19508715.pdf. I hate that it has to come down to this, but this looks like a clear case of CIR. I'd suggest an indefinite block at this point.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 01:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Drinkreader IP edits: time for a community 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.

---

• 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Drinkreader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP has, over the past few days, removed material from articles and talk pages related to various mixed drinks. He has at various times claimed copyright violations and made vague threads of legal action (e.g., [257] [258]). His most recent claim today is that the discovery of a reference is intellectual property: we can't use a reference because he found it first ([259] [260]). Finally, he has threatened to continue his disruption across multiple IPs ([261]). His current actions show no intent of trying to collaboratively work through things; he appears intent on disruption and content removal.

It is apparent from contribution history that this IP has formerly edited as Drinkreader, so this pattern of behaviour has been occurring off and on for the past four years. I suggest that it is time for an indefinite community ban of this user, so that any further disruption can be reverted on sight with an immediate block of the IP. Is there support for this? —C.Fred (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this really what you consider collaboration? You have yet to even suggest wiki articles to where as i can make better corrective edits within wikipedias guidelines. All youve done is threaten to, and currently attempt to ban me. That doesnt sound like someone open to helping new editors contribute to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The IP is claiming a copyright violation from a book they wrote in 1803? Or are they claiming that, having republished this quote in their own work, that they can then claim copyright of it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Funny you mention that, you wouldnt have half the references you have on all the cocktail pages of it werent for me. WHO DO YOU THINK THEY GOT THOSE REFERENCES FROM? So, even if you ban me, ive still contributed indirectly to dozens of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia appreciates your additions of references. Note this text below the edit window: "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban of this user-block evasion, legal threats, combative attitude out of the gate. We'll get along fine without him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

see also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Drinkreader--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban Saying "if i decidebto be disrruptive there isnt a (expletive removed) thing you can do about it.

[262] is about the most blatant possible admission that you should be banned. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• support indefinite community ban per norm Harassment of other users(and me), see my comment near the bottom of this section. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

<keyword>you</keyword> thats just it ivan, someone else, irrevocably agreed to release my contribution(s) without accrediteding sources, yes many original sources are present on the pages. Again, how do you think they got those? They just looked, when half the pages are far outdated and inaccurate by 500, and some 200 year old drinks are accurate to the year? How do you think thats possible? Hmmm.. somebody must have spent an awful lot of time researching to figire this out. Ive read so many cocktail amd recipe guides from 1522 (yes, in latin, in my hand) to today. Ive written over 250 articles on cocktails and cocktail history and ive written 72 books, and am editing my 73k. Im the real deal. If you saw your lifes work being plagiarized and destroyed and inaccurately presented wouldnt you be a wee bit upset?

If you said something about cocktails, i could not only tell you if its true or not, i could tell you the original source where you got that info. Its literally all i read and have read. Seriously, try me. Ill answer right away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Also they have been harassing other users as well, Look at User_talk:Drinkreader, and at this edit to my talk page [[263]]Look at the bottom. Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support indefinite community ban and suggests that the IP in question needs to learn what copyright actually covers. Protip: not shared secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• From this edit: "Fucking stealing ass assholes. Fuck you. You all act so fucking tough behind a keyboard. I will drop my location and we can see whats up."

Watch out, we got a badass over here. LOLOLOL I love an internet tough guy, but that's no reason to let someone who obviously can't even imagine what it means to act like a grown up edit here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, do they credit for someone else finding the same sources as them?Lakeside Out!-LakesideMiners^{Click Here To Talk To Me!} 15:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why indef?

You dont owe me anything, but why assume things will always be the same? Do you not think circumstances change which inturn changes demenor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:C6E1:BDC1:A87F:C0E0:E4D:CAC (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked (anon) for one year. That said, IP, if you think you have a legitimate concern about your own work being directly copied in Wikipedia (not just that we refer to it) then please contact WP:OTRS by emailing permissions-enwikimedia.org. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Slander on 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,

A User who joined Wikipedia in mid September has been negatively and persistently fixated on page Tanya Ekanayaka. There has been no positive contribution by this user other than deletion and complaints to administrators. Yesterday a {{COI}} has been placed by this user (Boogiewithstu) stating that 'another major contributor' is 'closely connected' to the subject with NO reasons or evidence based facts to support the claim. This is a very malicious attack on the subject of the article. It seems (looking at the user's activity/cotributions on Wikipedia) the user ONLY negatively targets edits made by this user (this user has never engaged with the said user but has been reported by him/her previously much to this user's surprise). The user is now taking to slandering the subject of the article publicly on the subject's page - see page issues. The accusations are in violation of civil behaviour. The subject did not ask to be on this wikipedia page. Where is the impartial and civilised code of behaviour which ought to be practiced by users? Users must NOT be allowed to slander the subjects of articles. Please - HELP! The {COI} should not be there.

Thank you.NSNMN (talk)

I see no slander libel. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

First things first - @NSNMN:, you must notify the user you are reporting, on their user talk page. There is a large yellow box that shows up when you edit this page, which tells you what you need to do. Secondly, the COI template appears to be 100% relevant and there is no slander there. Thirdly, the user you are reporting has edited a variety of pages, unlike yourself, and you are required to assume good faith on the part of other contributors. Fourthly, please don't talk about yourself in the third person ("this user" sometimes means you and sometimes the other editor) - it makes your post harder to read and understand. --bonadea contributions talk 07:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you help to resolve the issue? I.E check the page, edit, add or delete information where necessary? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You ignored the requirement to inform the user you reported. I have done that for you. --bonadea contributions talk 08:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang indef block Not here to build an encyclopedia. COI. General incompetence. --Tarage (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh and delete the article. This is clearly someone hired to do this. --Tarage (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Boomerang per Tarage. However, the editing pattern for BoogieWithStu might merit a closer look; user registered an account less than three weeks ago but seems very familiar with policies. There's a disclaimer on the user page about having done gnomish edits for a while, but the user has already taken someone to ANI, been doing a good amount of templating, and has an unusual familiarity with the various noticeboards for someone who has never had an account before or done anything beyond gnomish edits. Grandpallama (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello - I have not been paid to make any contribution to this or any other page. I am a well wisher and someone who recognises the artistic and humanitarian contribution of this subject to the world. I am not a professional Wikipedia editor/user and the edits made have been made with reference to evidence based material on the internet. bonadea I have, since you pointed out, made a note on the talk page of the user referred to- thank you for letting me know - my delay owes to the fact that I am not a professional Wikipedia user. If errors have been made on the page, correct them. It has been my hope and expectation that other impartial and fair users and editors would contribute to this page. This should be the intention of ALL users on Wikipedia. Instead, this page has become the focus of a particular user whose edits relating to this page have involved attacking me, making widespread deletions including a list of external reference URLs and now implicating the subject of the page. The user has been engaged in this kind of activity on this page ever since joining Wikipedia in mid September which leads me to question the motives of this user. The subject of the page has not, to my knowledge, requested to be on Wikipedia. The COI implicates the subject negatively - the subject being someone who does not have a voice on Wikipedia - the statement that the content is being edited by someone 'closely connected' to the subject *does* reflect negatively on the subject (a living person who has a life and career outwith Wikipedia). It implies that the subject of the article is consorting with people engaged in unethical behavior. Therefore I respectfully ask that the COI be removed and edits be made to the page compliant with Wikipedia conventions and ethics. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 12:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

A 'compliant page' would not be sourced almost entirely to Ekanayaka's publisher's website. Wikipedia needs evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources. 86.147.197.124 (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

86.147.197.124 (talk) - This is why I have requested edits and references to be added where relevant. A series of external references were deleted by the user who has now placed a COI. Dragging in the subject of the article via a COI, who to my knowledge never asked to be on Wikipedia and who therefore has no voice in this matter is very unfair by the subject (issue explained in detail above). The user who placed the COI has provided no evidence for the claim. I suggest that the COI be removed, therefore. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSNMN (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

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

MADHEPURA2018 mudslinging and editwarring on India articles

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

---

For the past few days, User:MADHEPURA2018 has been editwarring with multiple editors (William M. Connolley, RegentsPark, Chewings72 and Sitush) and crying racism on stable versions of India-related articles. When told to cool it, he doubles down. He appears to be here to push an agenda and not here to build an encyclopedia. Examples follow.

• "if you were actually familiar with the topic (which you are quite clearly not) and not being motivated by some weird agenda against me"
• "There is a very insidious effort by some history editors to remove any references to Bihar/Magadh"
• "anti-Bihari racism removed"
• "Adding multiple sources but will likely still be removed due to anti-Bihari racism"
• "Adding sources to counter anti-Bihari sentiment and Indians who want to steal our history"
• "Certain editors of low intellect may struggle."
• "take your racist biases against Bihar elsewhere. You are only important on Wikipedia (which is mocked worldwide as a place for imbeciles who don't know how to read a book). In the real world you are a nobody and actual academics laugh at you "Wikipedians"."

--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@SpacemanSpiff: for input. --regentspark (comment) 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE, a block should resolve this real quick. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Indefinitely Blocked I can accept that editors loose their cool now and then. It happens to all of us. But the catalog of abusive edits and edit summaries above is simply beyond the pale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

BLP violations in userspace

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

---

Here I am, interested to see what Breitbart had to say about being depreciated as a source, like a kid watching a car crash, since we all knew that bit self-justifying rhetoric was in-coming (link -> bit.ly/2y6HtKh). When I notice them calling out an admin who openly displays hostility towards supporters of President Trump on his user page claiming anyone believing Trump is a good President probably doesn’t have the competence required to edit Wikipedia. So looking into it, and I may never say this again as long as I live, but they're right. User:JzG's userpage is currently plastered with a prominently displayed ~800 word political diatribe, some of which is probably generic opinion of the type that would normally be allowed, much of which is a blatant a BLP violation, speculating about who may or may not be a liar, dyslexic, etc., and which wraps up neatly with So, in my view, believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

The BLP violations are not appropriate anywhere and should be removed. The CIR bit is not appropriate in user space per WP:POLEMIC as statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities and should also be removed, preferably before anyone picks up on Breitbart's angle, verifies it in about 10 seconds, and publishes a bit of their own. I've requested the content be removed and JzG has declined, so here we are. JzG does a lot of good work, and I agree with him as often as I disagree, but you don't get a pass on policy because you are one of our most active editors. GMG^talk 12:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Which of the statements do you argue is false? Note that th3 purpose of the essay is to explain why I think that uncritical support for Trump is disqualifying for editing Wikipedia articles. It's a personal view, and is why I generally avoid US politics articles. Guy (Help!) 12:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Whether I personally agree with the statements is irrelevant to determining whether it is unsourced contentious material about living persons which primarily serves to attack and vilify groups of editors. GMG^talk 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And how is a clearly personal opinion in userspace a BLP violation, and since it is not attacking specific individuals it can hardly be defined as a personal attack. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(multiple EC) Personal opinions in user space most clearly can be BLP violations. Regardless of the merits of the userspace essay and whether it should be allowed or is a BLP violation, I seriously question whether you should be allowed near BLPs if you think that personal opinions in userspace can't be BLP violations. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I seriously question an admin who confuses personal opinion with factual assertions regarding BLP policy. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It is true that statements of opinion can violate BLP - for example, quoting a Birther on your talk page and asserting that Obama is a Muslim would be a big deal. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The proper venue for this discussion is MfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

My intention is to have policy violating content removed. There is much content that is not policy violating, and so the page does not require deletion. GMG^talk 13:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

While this may not perfectly fit in MFD, IMO it would still be the best fit. Just make clear you aren't asking for the whole page. Although I didn't find any specific examples from a very quick search, I'm fairly sure I've seen similar cases discussed before when it was only part of the page. It would definitely be better than here as IMO this thread already shows. The only other case I can think of would be BLP/N, but that isn't really set up for this kind of thing either and I suspect even if some consensus is reached, it may be difficult to enforce. Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's entirely relevant whether the statements are false, as the only issue is whether this content is defamatory; we've always allowed (and encouraged) editors to state their political affiliations on their userpage, as it allows other people dealing with them to know which POV they're coming from. (I'll note in passing that from a UK perspective, nothing on that talkpage is remotely controversial; disdain for Trump is one of the few issues that unites the Conservatives, the centrists and the Corbynite left.) ‑ Iridescent 12:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And so I presume then that it would be appropriate for a user to have on their talk page that If you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton then you are not competent to edit Wikipedia? GMG^talk 13:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Was there something resembling a point in that kneejerk attempt at whataboutism? --Calton | Talk 15:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(even more EC) Is there some reason why you didn't simply say that then? I mean you didn't actually say that at all. The closest you seem to have come is what was highlight by GMG above which is quite a different thing. Someone may not have uncritical support for Trump while still think he is a good president. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I just found User:BullRangifer/Political ideology and sourcing which survived MFD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BullRangifer/Trump supporters, fake news, and unreliable sources). It IMO does a much better job of saying "why I think that uncritical support for Trump is disqualifying for editing Wikipedia articles", although note it doesn't actually directly make that specific point either. It definitely doesn't say "believing that Trump is a good President indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia". Actually it comes close to saying that it's not the case. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (edit conflict) While I personally disagree with posting one's personal opinion about politicians like that on their userpage, I must say this isn't a pressing issue. What JzG is doing is no different than anyone else that goes on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc) and says "Trump is a liar and a shitty president" (mind you, people say that about a lot of Presidents). It's nothing libelous or anything since it's mostly just "I can't stand Trump and he's this and that" rather than anything specific and I doubt that many people are watching the page anyway (after all, it's just a userpage). This is no different than anyone else posting their opinion and while I believe in keeping one's political views off Wikipedia, there are far more pressing issues than this so I actually find it quite contentious that something this minuscule is being brought to ANI.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

While I'm not saying that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, I do feel that BLP issues where the same is being uttered all over the internet are less severe than those where it's relatively uncommon, I also say that people are doing it everywhere is a poor excuse. We should stick by our own standards of BLP and what we allow in terms if personal opinion and what crosses the line. I mean I'm sure you can find people all over calling K or C a rapist but I hope we all agree that people aren't allow to say that in their user page. You may say that such statements aren't "personal opinion" but I think that's complicated and also missing the point is that we decide what we allow here and we don't allow it just because it's very common elsewhere. Remember BLP has only very little to do with protecting anyone against lawsuits. Note that I'm not saying that the offending content is definitely a BLP vio (or WP:POLEMIC/WP:SOAP) that needs to be removed, simply that everyone is doing it elsewhere doesn't tell us much about whether we should allow it here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that JzG has made it more difficult for him to block/topic ban certain groups of people. Here's the thing. Let's say JzG and I run into the same disruptive editor--some edit-warring asshole who keeps adding Trump-loving material, but usually staying below or at the limit where an immediate block per EW, NPA, NPOV would be obvious. I, whose political opinions are a complete mystery to everyone but my dog, can block for disruption or NOTHERE. JzG, on the other hand, can't easily make that case because from his obvious POV ("Trump supporters are incompetent to edit Wikipedia"?) it is harder to argue POV, taking out two of the three factors that I could have cited. And if I were a semi-competent Trump supporter (hey, it could happen) and JzG blocked me, it would be all too easy to argue he was too involved to block me. All that makes JzG's job harder and his field a bit more limited, and that in turn isn't good for us, cause God knows we have enough trouble with Wikipedians turning this joint into a collection of political ads and hitjobs. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: You make a valid point. At least with that scenario, it's not just someone saying "Oh, JzG shouldn't post whatever to his userpage". He's free to his personal view, but you're right in the sense that enforcing that view can be just as disruptive to the encyclopedia and unbecoming of an administrator.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Mythdon, I don't want to say "unbecoming". I think I know JzG's work a bit, and I have no reason to doubt that their administrative decisions are sound, but I also don't know them to make blocks in this area--perhaps they polemicize a bit while staying out of that business, I don't know. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Likewise, the rest is hypothetical.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: Yes, that is exactly correct, but it would be correct 'whether or not I made the statement. I made the statement because my views are not hard to ascertain - I make no secret of my identity - so any block or ban is likely to result in exactly the kind of griefing you allude to. That's why I don't normally edit in that area, and in fact it's only become noticed because I initiated an RfC on two sources, both of which are political, but based on my long standing interest in source quality, not on politics. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not ready to support removal. I have good friends who would agree that Donald Trump is the worst President in living memory, and quite possibly the worst ever. However, I am sure they would agree that it is their opinion, arguably informed opinion, but I can't imagine any of them saying Here's an objective truth:. I think we ought to seriously consider a topic ban for anyone with that view. At least covering anything to do with science and probably all BLP's. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: You are right, that was lazy rhetoric. I have now clarified it thus: "Here's an objective truth: Donald Trump is justly considered the worst President in living memory, and quite possibly the worst ever". Guy (Help!) 22:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent: You write that statements of political philosophy/affiliation are encouraged on user pages, and I've seen you stating the same before. I can understand the argument, and I recall at least one case of a user being banned based on a report here of Nazi user boxes on their user page. However, I've seen a lot of political statements on both user pages and talk pages in the last couple of years: there are a couple of other user pages containing political polemics arising from the 2016 US election, and I took issue with one user talk conversation in a private e-mail not long ago, because I regard it as divisive to the editing community and because neutrality is a vital part of what we are here for. I've just checked the guidelines for user boxes and I see that statements of political and religious positions/affiliations are still clearly and categorically discouraged there as divisive. The yellow box at the top of Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics is less categorical, but still left me feeling that there was no point in my adding a userbox stating "This user regards political statements as inappropriate on Wikipedia." As I recall reading (well before my time), political and religious user boxes were the major areas of concern in the user box wars, and the community kept user boxes not only by moving them out of template space into user space but also by undertaking to discourage polemical user boxes. I'm very concerned that the politicization of exchanges of opinion behind the scenes on Wikipedia is going to spill over into our coverage in article space; I've seen that happening, in fact; it also not only divides us, but potentially drives away would-be editors not only because they see their political point of view demonized in talk and user space, but because they find the focus on US and to a lesser extent UK politics alienating. If there has been a tacit shift in regards to user space enforcement, those user box/userspace guidance pages need rewriting. And I regard it as a bad thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

This is most certainly a clear WP:POLEMIC violation and the statements should be removed. Replace the comment about Trump with another controversial topic and you will see how it is no different:

So, in my view, believing in astrology indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

So, in my view, believing in the two-state solution indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

So, in my view, believing in gay marriage indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

So, in my view, believing in Christianity indicates that you are probably not competent to edit Wikipedia.

Sure, make your opinion about Donald Trump known, but the moment you start belittling other editors for having competing opinions is the moment it becomes divisive and problematic. Nihlus 17:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these examples, as they illustrate the difference between my statement and the ones you highlight.

There is unambiguous consensus that astrology is bollocks.

The two-state solution is a political question on which reasonable people may differ.

Gay marriage is a political question on which reasonable people may differ

Religion is a philosophical question on which people may differ

But if you come to Wikipedia to state that astrology is true, that the two state solution is the only acceptable outcome, that gay marriage is legitimate and beyond question, or that Christianity is the only truth about the world, you are not competent to edit. And that is the situation with Trump. Anybody who sincerely believes Trump to be a good president, should not, in my opinion, be here. And I explained why. What that means is that I will not give the time of day to people who try to argue that Trump is a good man. I am talking here about the kinds of people who say that God anointed Trump. That is disqualifying. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think we could invest hours dissecting a relevant policy (or guideline, which WP:POLEMIC is). Sometimes, that hand-wringing and bountiful debate is time well-spent. In this case, I do not see how that would be in aid of deciding whether a specific situation contained any abuse, bias, or disruption. This editor has self-published an essay containing strong but fairly common views about world politics. The editor is not actively advocating the view; not acting out the views in discussion with others; not, indeed, doing anything other than holding the view in the first place. Do userpages usually contain such essays? Most don't. Is this within the bounds of acceptability? I think so.

  As for the invocation of BLP, it seems not entirely relevant. People will have opinions about world politics. Many relate to the political class more widely, or the leader's support base (for Trump, read Republicans). Even where those opinions extend to the leaders personally, rarely will expressing those views be defamatory.

  JzG would be well-counseled to think on the reaction that some editors might have to such a plain statement of political view. But something makes me think that fact did not escape them in the first place. Is administrator intervention required here? I think not. AGK ■ 19:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the debate over whether political rants are ok on userpages, but I will say that calling all editors who do not agree with your opinion on a political issue incompetent is a personal attack on a category of editors (and therefor not allowed). This is especially concerning coming from an (very active) admin, and linking to CIR only makes it worse, since admins block people using CIR as justification, this casts doubt on JzG's ability to be fair when sanctioning anyone who is or appears to be a trump supporter. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree it's not useful to spend time arguing about policies here. It should be fair to say that we have never been consistent in that aspect, especially (in practice) toward editors of different status (new/established). Personally I would prefer JzG to move the essay to a subpage, instead of having it (prominently) displayed on their user page; as it is, the specific content in question can be reasonably construed as being "advocated" I think, even though it's stated as personal opinion (but contradicts the earlier part of the essay, which talks about "truth"). Alex Shih (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• There are two issues under debate here, and anything that does not address these two issues is not terribly relevant.

1) Are users permitted to keep unsourced contentious material regarding living persons in their user space?

I would argue no. Per BLP The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space

2) Are users permitted to disparage groups of editors in their user space?

I would argue no. Per POLEMIC prohibited content includes attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

Editors are perfectly able to have opinions about living people and groups of people. If they want to express these then they should start a blog. The issue is whether these two types of content are allowed under Wikipedia's policies. GMG^talk 20:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• by their statement of opinion the admin user User:JzG is thankfully unable to admin in the american political areas. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

And I don't. I normally avoid it altogether. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Does anyone want to analyze this user's conduct to see if there are any other issues with policy? ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• OP seems to have fallen victim to the "equal time" problem we so often see in fringe subjects, but which (until very recently) was rarely apparent in political subjects.

The fact of the matter is, any reasonable person, hitherto unaware of Donald Trump, who is then exposed to all relevant facts about Trump and his actions during the campaign, as president, and prior, would rapidly conclude that Guy is absolutely right.

Unfortunately, many people feel that all political views are a matter purely of opinion, and discount any basis in fact to any views (except their own). These people often fail to grasp that so-called "political opinions" are all-too-often questions that can, and have been, be answered with facts. This is sadly the case with questions about Trump's integrity. Supporters of Donald Trump who are unwilling to admit or unable to conceive of the many facts that reflect poorly upon him are, in fact, not competent to edit WP. Supporters who acknowledge his many faults but support him because he's virulently pro-business and anti-poor, or supporters who refuse to talk about his faults while not denying them, but support him over some single-issue that matters to him (the vast majority of supporters, in my experience) are perfectly entitled to their views, ethically questionable as they may be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I have never seen JzG act based upon bias. But, seems to me that it might be a good idea for us to follow a guideline missed in a recent news kerfuffle. A judge should not only act without bias, but without an appearance of bias. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As a Trump-supporting conservative myself I am a little concerned about those statements. We have right-wing pov-pushers that get blocked on a daily basis, but we block them because their battleground mentality and not because of their political views. The fact that we have an admin (who has the power to block users) that said this right on his userpage implies that he will not tolerate editors with political views he disagrees with, which is clearly not okay. That being said, I am happy that he doesn't take action in this area, and I appreciate that he took the statements off his userpage. funplussmart (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• JzG has removed the content from their userpage. I'm fine with that and that's what I asked for originally. Someone please close this before it gets off into left field (for non-Americans, that is a baseball, and not a political reference). GMG^talk 00:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering that GMG just opened this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics I am not sure that the statement "I'm fine with that and that's what I asked for originally" was anything other than a subterfuge. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I did, after I realized they had not removed, but had moved it. The point remains, discussion should take place there, and not here, and this discussion serves no further purpose. GMG^talk 00:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

So your statement above "There is much content that is not policy violating, and so the page does not require deletion" means what? MarnetteD|Talk 00:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering JzG already addressed the concerns of the community by moving to a subpage, even added references, I don't see why this is still a conversation, let alone the MFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

My statement above means that I have not nominated the remainder of his user page for deletion, because the remainder of his user page is not policy violating. GMG^talk 00:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement - return of LTA?

2011 Indian anti-corruption movement is currently in something of an edit war state. I dropped notes for Drmies and RegentsPark but they would appear to be offline. I am a little concerned that this might be the return of people associated with WP:LTA/IAC, which suggests reporting here.

I cannot revert at the article any more but have tried to communicate the person who is removing stuff through edit summaries, a note on their talk page and notes on the article talk (with ping). It probably need protection but there is a peculiarity, too: although it is ages since it was last protected, the remover has pretty much done the standard routine of clocking up a minimal number of edits at an innocuous article before moving over to this one, almost as if they thought it was still protected. Weird but help/advice would be appreciated. Should I even notify them of this thread, as I would usually do?

A word of warning: if it is the LTA then do not get involved unless you are preferred for a shitload of trouble, possibly including off-Wiki stuff. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Editor reverted and warned. If they edit the article again without gaining consensus on the talk page first, I'll block indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Floq. - Sitush (talk) 21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

CU was warranted but delivered no results--not really surprising if it has been quiet for a while. Note that I have not previously, to my knowledge, run CU on IAC accounts, certainly not to the extent that I remember any of the details. One of the CUs with more experience in the matter might take this up--if it gets worse, I suppose. Thanks Sitush. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for running a check, Drmies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, the Crusader of the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement "Anna Hazare" was almost back in action and was in the news lately, hence the rise in the interest of editors on that page. I don't believe for now that this is LTA yet, but more admin eyes would certainly be helpful. --DBigXrayᗙ 22:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• As I said at RP's talk page, I don't think this is the LTA either (and I tangled with that one a fair bit). There isn't the sort of aggressive legalese that was IAC's hallmark. This is just plain old axe-grinding. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

If edit warring, content disputes, and disruption like this have been an ongoing occurrence with this article, why not resolve the matter by applying extended confirmed protection to it? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, they (or someone with the same aim) is back there deleting swathes of stuff. I've alerted Floq but I don't think they're online. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Sitush has reverted my stable edits and keeps reverting when I restore to the last stable version (mine) instead of his prefered version. He also seems to think that IP editors ought not to edit at wikipedia. FWIW, the involved User:Ramesh8888 may have a WP:COI through sharing a surname with Anna Hazare. 103.30.142.163 (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Not familiar with the LTA but have warned the recently active IP user (103.30.142.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 103.30.141.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)), and will block/protect if the disruption and aggressive conduct continues. Abecedare (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Which it has, Abecedare. I've semi'd the article for a month. If the IP-hopper continues to harass Sitush, any admin who sees it will hopefully block. The range is 103.30.140.0/22, so far. Bishonen | talk 10:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC).

IP 51.7.229.221

This editor showed up today as an WP:SPA. That purpose was to remove the linkage from individual annual editions of American track and field championship articles to the article about the series. [265], [266], [267], [268] as examples. With an account history of just today, they cite wikipedia policy WP:BOLDAVOID as their excuse. I initiated a conversation to offer suggestions on alternatives to accomplish their sudden need for conformity without damaging the links. At least they conversed. Not only were resistive to the suggestions (and of course started by protecting their edits with reverting), but when I suggested their behavior was improper, they deleted the notice. While I find all of this offensive, it may not rise to the level of vandalism, but certainly is not collegial. I would like them to find a means to repair the damage they have done, unbolding being the easiest solution, and refrain from doing further damage. Trackinfo (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly do not have a "single purpose". I simply noticed that most of the articles about US track and field championships were badly formatted, and so I set about fixing them. My purpose was obviously not to "remove the linkage" blah blah. The link this person is concerned about is still present in all of the articles. And yet they began pestering me, demanding that I make certain further edits. I say here, as I said to them: I made the articles better, and if they want to make them better still, great. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work, isn't it? 51.7.229.221 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous complaint and a boomerang WP:TROUT against Trackinfo may be necessary. A disagreement with a new user who appears to be following policy and editing in good-faith doesn't call for an ANI post. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, The IP editor appears to be correct on almost all counts:

• They are not an SPA
• They are correct about WP:BOLDAVOID
• You, rather than the IP editor, were uncollegial from your first post on their talk page
• I would have deleted that obnoxious notice too.
• It does not even come close to "rising to the level of vandalism".
• Of a random sampling of similar articles for other sports, it appears they are all formatted generally the way the IP editor has done.
• The link to the general article is still included in the navigation template.
• You are free to add the link back into the lead or the infobox or something some other way if you want.

The only fault I can really find with the IP editor is reverting prior to coming to an agreement, but... the MOS is really clear on this, and they only reverted once. And, I suppose, they could have tried harder to work with Trackinfo to come up with an acceptable compromise wording, except when you treat an editor with disrespect, you can't really fault them for not meekly saying "Yes Sir". --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Trackinfo, your "suggestion" on their talk page that the IP editor's contributions were improper, was itself improper. There is no hint of vandalism here, since the edits bring the articles into compliance with the Manual of Style. IP addresses can change and perhaps this is a person who used another IP in the past. Or perhaps they read extensively before beginning to edit. That's what I did back in 2009. But this incident is definitely unworthy of an ANI report, and your behavior looks far worse than that of the person you are reporting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but this is probably the BKFIP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

That's possible, I suppose, but unless there is a better reason to suspect that than "an IP editor who is right about something and doesn't like being talked down to by an editor with an account", I don't think we should assume that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

As often happens as I read Wikipedia articles, I noticed something -- in this case, a blue link in bold face -- that looked jarring and wrong, and so I wondered if there was a guideline about it. Turned out there was, MOS:BOLDAVOID, so I fixed up the problem I'd found. I was surprised that a user took such exception to this, and relieved when three other users found no fault in my editing. Now I'm surprised again to find myself traduced by a fourth user, who accuses me of long term abuse. The page they link to describes someone who targets biographies of living people, where they "remove the phrase "best known for" from an article with an edit summary of "rm pov"". Why would me fixing a style issue in articles about athletics events lead you to make this accusation? Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all? 51.7.229.221 (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks more like a sockpuppet of Kumioko but as long as they're improving the encyclopedia and making good faith edits, I don't see why we need to bring out the tar and feathers. Particularly when they say insightful things like "Why would anyone fixing a style issue ever be any kind of problem at all?" which is a question I have asked myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Gee thanks. Traduce some more why don't you. Perhaps you and everyone else so put out by it can share with us why someone fixing a style issue bothered you enough to accuse them of sockpuppetry. I would not have expected a single negative reaction to it, and I think it's a pretty major concern that it prompted such a viciously negative response. 80.189.156.215 (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and WP:SPA on Salt Bae article

Blitzcream has been performing whitewash edits on the Salt Bae since their account was created. The Blitzcream account was created shortly after an incident regarding "Salt Bae" and Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Over 60% (25/41) of the edits made by Blitzcream, which is most likely WP:SPA when WP:DUCK is applied, involve "Salt Bae" or related discussions. The user only attempted to diverge from the article and make other edits once WP:SPA was brought to their attention (see diffs: my tag regarding possible WP:SPA and some of the first edits made by Blitzcream involving an article other than "Salt Bae"). The user Blitzcream also seems experienced with Wikipedia policies regarding edit conflicts, raising questions on whether they have specialized in contorversial articles in the past.

Their first edit reverted by addition of content regarding the incident. Blitzcream's first edit falsely stated in their edit summary that a source did not contain criticism against "Salt Bae". To further support the content, an additional source was added regarding the incident and it was once again reverted by Blitzcream, with the user pushing to delay the addition of content by creating an unnecessary talk page discussion. I explained that my edits did not mention so-called "political displays" (which was one of the main reasons Blitzcream reverted) and that the content only contained the responses of individuals provided by reliable sources. I attempted to add the content once more in the most NPOV wording I could think of in order to avoid further conflict. This, of course, was reverted by Blitzcream. After continuous reverts, I continued to try and discuss how wording could be improved without censoring content. After that and other options, Blitzcream again falsely stated that "Salt Bae" did not receive criticism in the sources. I explained to Blitzcream that I attempted to make the wording suitable for them, but the reverts continued. After the constant whitewashing and reverts, I left a final message clearly showing the content of the sources while using direct quotes and warned them to cease their disruptive edits. I added the information back to the article with multiple sources and updated details. This was reverted. I added the information again with simple, NPOV wording to serve as a middle ground and to end the conflict. This was reverted.

So this is why I have decided to direct this conflict here. I have dealt with WP:SPA and WP:COI users before, especially on the Smartmatic article, and would be grateful for any help as this is unecessarily stressful and I do not wish to edit in conflict as it only wastes time that can be spent improving Wikipedia. Thank you for any feedback and I will make improvements where they are needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I am struck by the amount of effort being put into arguing if a guy who puts salt on meat is a communist or not. That is all. --Tarage (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh. Sorry. I know you have 12k edits to Blitzcream's 40, but believe it or not, I'm not seeing it. For example, you're inserting the claim that "Gökçe has ... been criticized for his political displays": the examples given in the article, and by extension, the sources, are referring to miscellaneous instances of criticism on social media. I mean, that's not typically something that's considered to be encyclopedic. At least, it's debatable whether and how such things should be included in an article; a reasonable content dispute ripe for WP:DR. What else has he done? Slightly de-emphasize classifications of "Kurds" in favor of actual nationalities? Really not seeing this.  Swarm  talk  07:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: That is the thing. The content added is not stating that Gökçe is being criticized for his "political displays". It is stating that he was criticized for serving a luxury meal to the president of hungry nation. Whether or not that is a "political display" is up for interpretation. I have asked for suggestions of wording that would be more NPOV and avoid political issues, but the only action that Blitzcream has taken is reverting and censoring the content. As the article currently stands, it is a half-truth saying that only Maduro was criticized when Gökçe was also denounced for his actions as well.

Regarding the edits surrounding the Kurdish background, those were only minor edits, though Blitzcream still maintained an antagonistic approach towards other users as well. Blitzcream described edits by Lkasso1 (who is just as new as Blitzcream) as being ""Turkish/Kurdish nationalism bullshit". Their behavior makes me think that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I looked through the reverts at Salt Bae, and other than maybe reminding Blitzcream about edit warring to watch their reverts, I don't see much here that's actionable nor do I see anything that constitutes a gross violation of policy that warrants action here and now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thank you for taking time to look this over and providing feedback.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

ZiaLater - Of course; always happy to help :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• This looks like a collision between an internet-famous person (where virtually all sources are likely to be hyperbole), WP:BLP, and a national environment where virtually nothing is free of some kind of political overtones. Reminding people to keep tot he talk page until there is consensus seems like the way forward here. Of course, I would nuke the article. Internet-famous is synonymous with not-famous in my view, but I recognise I ma in a minority there. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe. On the other hand, when Temasek Holdings, the Singaporean state investment arm and another company jointly invested US$200 million in the parent company of Salt Bae's steak house chain, valuing the parent company at US$1.2 billion, most sources mentioned him sometimes in misleading ways [269] [270] [271] [272] (well previous 2 are from before the agreement, I couldn't find any content after the announcement & to be clear I didn't restrict to mention of Salt Bae) [273] (this is from before, there are sources after but this one is less sensationalistic with actually discussion of possible reasons for the investment but still mentions Salt Bae) [274] [275]. They seem to continue to do so [276] [277] [278]. And while notability is not inherited, see also [279] [280] [281] [282] which perhaps reflected the way internet fame can intersect with real world fame. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Livioandronico2013

On Commons, we have discovered that User:Livioandronico2013 has been abusing multiple accounts to (a) evade their indef block [since November 2017] and (b) to cheat at Featured Picture Candidates for several years in over 300 nominations. The other accounts are User:Σπάρτακος and User:Architas which are now also blocked on Commons. Earlier this year, Livioandronico2013 used their Wikipedia account to attack me on Wikipedia. See this AN/I post and was blocked here for a week. You might want to investigate if these accounts have been used to cheat or disrupt Wikipedia and consider blocking some or all of them. -- Colin°^Talk 08:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Livioandronico2013 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Σπάρτακος (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Architas (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• The first account is indef-blocked on Commons and the other two are checkuser-blocked, also on Commons. They are not blocked on enwiki, and they have zero page overlaps outside of article space and the few articles they have edited in common are only a handful on each, and separated by years; that is to say they have not "cheated" in any discussions. The only technical violation of policy that I see here is that Architas edited once while Livioandronico2013 was blocked back in May, but I personally don't think that's worth actioning now. At best, maybe a one-account restriction is in order here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 09:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I've left a note at WT:FPC regarding this matter. I'll keep an eye out for socks. MER-C 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• Hipeople1988 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) turned up today on Commons just to let everyone know they had moved on from secretly cheating to being obviously disruptive. Enforcing one-account on WP would seem to be wise. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Bbb23 has made that official. The new sock doesn't seem to be registered on this wiki. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Renewed nonsensical numerology and talk page abuse

• Fuller.david (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 74.141.210.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Renewed nonsensical numerology and talk page abuse on gravitation-related articles after final warning in April 2018. That final warning resulting in a reply " In Your FACE DVdm !!!!!"

Most recent target is Talk:Gravitational coupling constant. Case of wp:NOTHERE. - DVdm (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the IP user and Fuller.david were both the same person - the timeline of edits to Talk:Gravitational coupling constant appear to fit and support this. The only edits this user has made to the article space is four edits to Entropic gravity on 1 April 2018, and one edit to Unified atomic mass unit on 27 September 2017. Fuller.david's user page is full of math formulas and equations, and they've also used their user talk page for this as well. All other edits have been to article talk pages and appear to be completely off-topic and having no involvement with discussion or collaboration with other users. I'm starting to question WP:NOTHERE as well. Regardless, I believe that there's enough information from what I've found to justify an indefinite block. If the user intends to make positive contributions to the project and their intentions are to build an encyclopedia, then they'll have no problem with formulating a logical and convincing explanation in their unblock request. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! - DVdm (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please throw a spam filter together ...

Special:Contributions/93.182.104.0/21 seems to be having fun posting links [[Kıbrıs Türk Devletı]] and [[639-1 ısoo]] with a few variations. If someone could throw together a spam filter that would be great, I would however, bed beckons. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Billinghurst - Have these edits continued on other IP ranges and after September 30? If so, what other ranges did they occur on? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No idea. I was analysing a set of IP data only, and looking at the abuse. Randomly looking at the articles that have been hit, the vandalism is on a broad range of articles, rather than deep within each. The worst vandalism looks to be at Turkish_Cypriot_State, and there it doesn't seem to be broader in an IP range. Also adding another term, though this isn't wikilink'd kuzey turk devleti. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

ITN "supervote"

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

---

Is it right that Amakuru votes in support of a contentious ITN, then posts that same ITN? The discussion has been open less than four hours, and this supervote has closed it, despite the ITN admin instructions stating that "If the consensus is not entirely clear, consider letting the nomination run for more time, especially if the nomination is less than 24 hours old". - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not closed, I just posted based on the consensus as it stood at the time, which was in favour of posting whether my comment was included or not. If the situation changes it can be pulled again. This is not an AfD or RM discussion where the admins decision is binding and final. I considered it in the interests of readers to post the story and showcasing our article on the subject sooner rather than later, and I don't apologise for putting readers first.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't put readers first: you've put your own opinion first. This is still a very new piece of news and still being discussed (just look at Howe many comments have been made since your supervote. This is not good, and your 'I've done no wrong' comment isn't at all helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well intentioned... but bad call WP:INVOLVED would seem to be the applicable guideline here. Yes involved admins have posted stuff at ITN and closed discussions... if the consensus is so overwhelming that it is not going to be controversial. But I don't think that is the case here and whatever the argument might be regarding where consensus stood at the time of posting there was, and still is, enough opposition that an involved admin should not be making the call. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Close as improper venue - As a supporting ITN !voter, I am embarrassed by this ANI filing. This is not the page to re-argue the merits of the story and circumstances of the posting. This can be discussed on the ITN Talk page, or elsewhere as need be, and I suggest this be closed at once. Jusdafax (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the posting, which was procedurally flawed at the least. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Eurovision Song Contest Previews

The following discussion is closed. 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 editor MrLuke485 made an erroneous change to this article, without providing any supporting references. I undid the change. I appreciate there is some confusion regarding this particular broadcast as the Radio Times UK listing magazine did indeed publish the host's name, but that host subsequently did not present the programme. Regardless, I posted a note on the editor's talk page, but they ignored it, made the incorrect change again and then posted on my talk page "Dear Randrom Troll", abusing me for not being able to read and suggesting I learn to read and get a copy of a book they are subsequently using as a reference. The book in question - which I have - doesn't actually support their edit, but regardless, is a fan produced, self-published vanity project that is only available from the author. The abuse of MrLuke485 falls way short of the wiki guidelines, plus, they are now in violation of the 3RR rule and seem intent on making their edit which makes the article incorrect. Additionally, there are many other articles relating to the Eurovision Song Contest they have edited and place erroneous, unsourced edits, including such nonsense as the editor of The Economist, Sir Alistair Burnet being a presenter of the 1965 contest. Other names they have randomly added include Denis Tuohy and Nicholas Parsons, none of whom have ever participated in the contest and a brief view of the videos concerned would confirm this. Please stop this editor abusing good faith editors with "Dear Random Troll" and other insults.50.254.136.250 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I also report editor 50.254.136.250, for the tone he took with me when I made the edits to the Eurovision preview page, I myself made these edits due to reference from the book Songs for Europe and also through the BBC archives. I admit I was not around in 1975, but without proof that it was Wogan as the archives do not have a copy of the 75 previews, you do question which sauce is reliable. Can I also point out that 50.254.136.250 is the notorious TVArchivistUK, whom themselves made edits that were mistakes and then abused users for undoing their revision. So for the user above to say his edits are in good faith is completely absurd as he has not produced one single peace of reliable sources.

Mrluke485 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

You cannot point out that I am a 'notorious' or otherwise editor that I am not, no. I have no connection with any other editor on this site and your insinuation is ludicrous. However, if you would like to produce "one single peace(sic) of reliable" evidence, please do. I'd be most interested. 50.254.136.250 (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I am trying to my best in finding relevant information, that what everyone is doing. To judge a book as fan based is a bit of judgement call. The author did state that he collected the information through individual who remembered it well, including staff at the BBC and even credits them for the information. I do feel that when I try, people do not give me the chance to explain my information. Yes the Burnett one is ludicrous, but that has been on Wikipedia for aslong as three years, why wasn’t it sorted out before then. I do try and find as much relevant information, it didn’t help when you confronted me on the talk page. I am not a troll, I take my Eurovision work very seriously, I have done for the past 7 years. Mrluke485 (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: This looks like a content dispute, which ANI does not deal with. I'd suggest dispute resolution (or the noticeboard), but not ANI. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 22:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Deedurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made two contributions in main article space in 2011, both promoting themselves. Since then their oly activity consists of WP:FRINGE material on the user talk-page. I have warned the user, and got the reply "thanks for the heads up" [283]. Kleuske (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC),

Kleuske accusations are completely personal on his part and certainly not civil or accurate. I'm gathering information from reliable sources and none of it's mine, so how am I promoting myself. What are you referring to for 2011? --Deedurden (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• Whilst this could be a contributor to nurture, the content being drafted is not encyclopedic in tone or layout. I grow concerned when a new user's content looks better suited to a private wiki or word document. However, I would prefer to see a couple more attempts at engagement. I will leave them a {{First article}} welcome. AGK ■ 14:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We crossed paths. I've blocked them as NOTHERE. I see nothing to nurture here at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Bbb23. "I see nothing to nurture here at all". These words make me so sad. DYK I watered my daughter's cactus yesterday, thinking "yes little cactus, there is hope for you too"? Why can't we get some cactus love out of you? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm OK, maybe. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
      • If the cactus is potted, don't water it too much. Seriously, they need only a tiny amount of water. I had a few when I lived in southern California. Many cactuses are very beautiful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh I know, but this thing hadn't seen rain since...I don't know, last time Alabama lost? Thanks nonetheless Bbb, and happy sportsball day today. And I found you a video you won't care for. Are Tide rolls and Alarob still around? What about AuburnPilot? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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 14.248.2.193

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

---

WP:LEGAL violation at Special:Diff/862857299. The Vietnamese translation text show that the owner of this IP will threat to engage with the Goverment of Vietnam and Vietnam's courts about information in article Đỗ Mười, which he claims that violated the law of Vietnam. The IP is same people with 123.16.24.141 in article's history, trying to put refimprove to aticle even there is no any fact section. IP also did the same in Vietnamese Wikipedia with legal threats. --minhhuy ^(talk) 04:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I barely read English. let alone viet namese. Please inform user of this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A warning message sent to user by Sakura Cartelet, however still have same legal threats in User talk:Alphama. --minhhuy ^(talk) 05:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Legal threat has been dealt with there too. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Someone, per the instructions at the top of this page, needs to notify them of this discussion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I've given the IP a notice. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

For convenience, google translation of the diff. SQL^{Query me!} 13:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

That's compelling enough. Blocked, 2 weeks, for making legal threats. AGK ■ 14:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Offensive edit summary

Yep, diff.

See the rest of Special:Contributions/Loricarey. This person and a sock (filed at SPI) are reverting removals of breitbart.com that were done pursuant to WP:BREITBART. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Goooo bye bye. Canterbury Tail talk 21:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail - Thank you for blocking the user - you beat me to it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No way I'm defending the person's edit summaries or claims made (that alone is banable offenses), but I do have concerns that the material that was removed that they reverted met the RSOPINION allowances that the Breitbart closure allowed for, with those removing the BB links and materials sourced to them perhaps cutting off more than the closure allowed form. I've already discussed w/ Jytdog related to the removal on the diff above on that talk page, and while there's a valid point on UNDUE issues, that should be a point of discussion before removal; the BREITBART closure was not allowance to remove any BB link, only those that were being used to source factual material (or least, factual material in WP's voice). Wumbolo made up User:Wumbolo/Breitbart as opinion on the 25th after the closure to track seemingly valid uses of BB under RSOPINION, and some of the reverts of this user are based on removals of BB after this list was made. Masem (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem - I don't see an issue with restoring or fixing such material if what was removed should be kept. Obviously, the concerns and decision behind blocking the reported user was due to their incivility and personal attacks added to their edit summaries. I didn't consider the content itself when looking into the matter; just the edit summaries that were left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Masem, *sigh*. Sorry, we're talking about a longterm harasser here who makes violent and obscene threats all over the place, may well have thousands of already blocked socks, and you want to make some point about how to keep more Breitbart in our articles? Does Breitbart need a hug? If this harasser has valid points to make, why don't you discuss it with them. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I have revdeleted the edit summary in question and changed this section's header. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano - Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Damn, we just discussed doing this at the weekly Far-Left Pedophiles of Wikipedia (FLPOW) meeting, and apparently, Jytdog beat us to the punch. Oh well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Found another one: Sagobony1. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked by Salvio giuliano (thank you). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

And talk page access removed/edit deleted. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• the current header is just so dull. :( But thanks for the swift mop-wielding! Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• another sock: Special:Contributions/Puncharyan Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Another: Awlsbloch –dlthewave ☎ 23:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Considering the incitement to violence here removal of talk page access might be in order. MarnetteD|Talk 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

While not as egregious this should be looked at as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD - I've revoked talk page access from both users and redacted the revisions (WP:DENY). Thanks for the heads up :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MarnetteD - You bet :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also Steplush –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

  Blocked by Zzuuzz--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• + Sizerhurts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• + Scentgotta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not a big surprise given the website in question. This may need a rangeblock in the end. Guy (Help!) 09:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This is JarlaxleArtemis, hopping around on open proxies. A range block is not going to be effective. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeeeup, I figured :-/ ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding:

• Zionist and Proud18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Novadock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hersbrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I assume someone will sweep these up at some point?

I have blacklisted breitbart.com for now, which should prevent further reverts. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

JzG, how long are you planning on keeping breitbart.com on the blacklist? It's used quite a lot and, in some cases, can be a reliable source and beneficial to an article. Vermont (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it so only confirmed editors can add it? Like have an edit count requirement? --Tarage (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

in some cases, can be a reliable source On this planet? --Calton | Talk 22:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Could we switch it to being on XLinkBot's disallowed list? Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart News is only reliable for its own editorial opinions. At best, if it reports something, it can be used to search for reliable sources to see if they report the same thing, and then that citation (from the RS) can be used. I see no reason that Breitbart shouldn't be blacklisted for as long as necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

It is already on the xlinkbot list, the issue was socks reverting removals with offensive edit summaries. Only blacklisting will stop that. @Vermont: If there's consensus on Talk that a link to Breitbart is appropriate, overcoming the strong consensus that it's unreliable, it can be added to the whitelist. Please note that in general "Breitbart said X, source, Breitbart saying X" would require a reliable independent source to establish that the statement is actually significant, per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 08:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The edit filter would be a preferable option. It wouldn't take a minute to write an appropriate filter. I'd suggest it's removed from the blacklist as soon as possible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have formally requested that it be removed from the blacklist and instead XLinkBot be used here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#breitbart.com_2 as the blacklist should only be used as a method of last resort, and XLinkBot can handle these less than a week old socks. -Obsidi (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been on XLinkBot for 10 months now, showing that that has been tried to no avail. Though an edit filter could do the trick, seen that this is an unreliable source anyway (meaning that its use should be limited), there is no reason that future appropriate additions, if any, cannot be handled by the whitelist. Skimming through uses I would be surprised if there currently are more than 10 proper uses in mainspace (the few (3!, but I did not search hard) I saw should go through whitelisting at some point, but no hurry; links outside mainspace can be disabled). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected, we may get to 20, on maybe 10 pages. <shrug>. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are not many mainspace articles now. But that is after JzG removed links to it from over 200 mainspace articles just 3 days ago. Now some of those should have been removed (given the result of the RfC). But there are others in which Breitbart was used for a quote by an author from Breitbart or an opinion of the author at Breitbart, in which Breitbart is still a valid source. Such as a quote from Jeremy D. Boreing, a cite from Milo on what he was working on, Tom Tancredo's endorsement (he was the author of the article), a quote by Shevinsky on what she considers herself. That all seem to fall within WP:SELFSOURCE of which Breitbart is still valid for. And yet none of these can be added back in right now as JzG removed them and then prevented anyone from reverting his edits. -Obsidi (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Whatever, this isn't the appropriate section to be discussing this. -Obsidi (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: would you be interested in opening a WP:RSN discussion to clarify? –dlthewave ☎ 01:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I've only reviewed about 10% of the several hundred removals that occurred after the RfC. I'd like to finish reviewing all the removals so I can list all of the relevant edits (many of the removals are appropriate). And my sense, from what I have seen so far, is more about a dispute concerning WP:NPOV and the WP:WEIGHT we should give them. As they are no longer a RS for fact, do we need another RS to quote them before they can be quoted at all even though they are a RS for their own view/opinion? I'll bring that up to WP:NPOVN in the next 48 hours or so. -Obsidi (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as long as you don't mustake yourself for a neutral arbiter. We have a documented consensus. Clearly you don't like that, but it is what it is. In fact if merely codifies long standing practice, Breitbart has failed RS for a very long time.The same applies to Occupy, Gateway Pundit, WND and many other "sources" that have grown up in recent years. HuffPo is also suspect, Washington Times usually junk and so on. There are bad leftist sources and bad right wing sources, but my overall impression is that removing bad left wing soyrces get# less blowback. Odd, really. Guy (Help!) 06:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Obsidi: I am looking forward to whitelist requests for those cases where there is consensus for (re-)inclusion. Seen the massive consensus that for general use it is inappropriate (except some primary use) I guess that many of these will needa talkpage consensus or RSN consensus for the specific use, after which whitelisting is just a formality. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:14, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing by User:Hasive

The following discussion is closed. 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 suspect that Hasive­ has been paid to edit on wikipedia (without disclosing these payments previously).

The Bengali Wikipedia community has recently obtained evidence that Hasive was paid BDT 1.5 million (about $18,000) by the government of Bangladesh to write Wikipedia articles about every Bangladeshi parliamentarian (source from gov site 1, 2). For two years he has been writing these articles without informing the community about the payments. He has only recently admitted to this after being confronted about it (on Bengali Wikipedia's mailing list and village pump). Yet he is claiming, as an excuse for not informing the community there, that this was merely a personal project of his.

I suspect, based on the sorts of edits he has been making on the English Wikipedia, that his work here is ­also being treated as part of his work writing articles on Bengali Wikipedia about parliamentarians.

This suspicion of mine has become stronger due to a comment of his on the Bengali Wikipedia village pump; he has stated "Aside from parliamentarians, information about every parliamentary constituency is being regularly updated on Wikipedia. This data has also been, and is being, added alongside Wikipedia to 'Wikidata', one of its sister projects".

At present the Bengali Wikipedia community is decided to revoke his admin rights there and indefinitely ban him there. He subsequently resigned from the board of Wikimedia Bangladesh and his membership of Wikimedia Bangladesh has also been canceled by the board over this. Link: https://bd.wikimedia.org/s/­1f2

I thus request that the English Wikipedia community begin to investigate this matter.

• B­engali Wikipedia discussion

source from gov site:

1. page 22, table 9 (Archive)

2.page 3, table 14 (Archive) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

So, nobody is touching this. Can we discuss stuff disclosed by Hasive at bn-WP in en-WP?

I did look at their edits and it matches what was said about their edits there.

BLP violation: unsourced content PROMO content. COPYVIO from source added in next diff. (already has been revdelled)

BLP violation unsourced PROMO content.

diff and

this diff is copy/pasted from the source which is page 8 of the word document in bengali hosted here at the bengali government PR office. (the word document is a series of bios of members of the bangladeshi government; i copied it into google translate). I sorta suspect it was written by Hasive as part of the project discussed at bn-WP, but cannot of course know).

This person's editing is horrible.

He is, happily, not an admin in en-WP. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If true then they should surely be globally banned, which would mean getting the WMF involved. Some sort of strong message has to be sent out when people are conducting UPE across multiple language projects. - Sitush (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. While we can 86 him from here, it won't do anything for Bengali Wikipedia; this needs to be taken up at Meta at some point. I still say we have cause enough to indef him from en.wp right here and right now before we take that step, if he's continuing to edit. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: The user has already been indef-blocked and desysopped on bnwiki, as Aftab stated, so those actions directly affecting him on that wiki have already taken place. There is an ongoing effort to check all articles he created/improved on bnwiki pertaining to certain groups of people for copyvios, with a separate but related effort (search for "Appointment with Editor of Prothom Alo" on that page) to see if a newspaper would be willing to license certain articles, from which lots of copyvios on bnwiki are derived, under CC-BY-SA. @আফতাবুজ্জামান: At some point you will need to inform Meta, as Jeremy suggests, and possibly Wikidata as well about this situation. mahir256 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Mahir256, who is "Aftab"? Softlavender (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

User:আফতাবুজ্জামান = User: Aftabuzzaman (per google translate)= Aftab, I assume Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, correct enough:-) ∯WBG^converse 09:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I ran into this editor in 2017, when they created Foundation for Research on Educational Planning and Development, which was speedily deleted as a copyright infringement. I then had to revert their additions to Zunaid Ahmed Palak, which at the time was one of the most unambiguously promotional puff pieces I’d come across on Wikipedia. (Apology for no diff; I’m on mobile, but look through the history beginning in April 2017.) All of this user’s substantive contributions are going to have to be checked carefully. /wiae /tlk 12:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the primary content I was referring to. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Question: আফতাবুজ্জামান, your statement "At present the Bengali Wikipedia community is decided to revoke his admin rights there and indefinitely ban him there" is unclear, as it is not in standard English. Is he or is he not still an admin on Bengali wiki? Is he or is he not still able to edit Bengali wiki? Softlavender (talk)

• Softlavender: He has been desysoped and blocked indefinitely from there and the reason was undisclosed paid editing: Local block log, Meta log and Central Auth. His issue is clearly brazen violation of TOU and our policies, add to that he has been doing this for long undetected. I also agree with Wiael, this is clearly a textbook example of promotion and probably worst example of so. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• There's been clear promotional editing (often including blatant and horrible puffery) here on the English Wikipedia for some time, which ties in with the block for undisclosed paid editing at the Bengali Wikipedia. I have, therefore, indef blocked - and will shortly inform him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• As a native Bengali speaker, who went through the entire bn.wiki saga and his contributions over here, I think a global block ought be in short order. One of the most outright fraud, I've ever seen, in my wiki-life.If anybody is interested to hear a translation of his defense, ping me.Our UPE-noob(s) offer better versions than that:-)also, I've asked for him to be removed from WMF's Grant Advisory Committee over Alexandra's t/p.∯WBG^converse 10:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
• In addition to a site ban and global block, his userpage needs to be blanked, as it is clearly self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Account appears to be threatening legal action on behalf of a client

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

---

• Leejacoby1972 (talk · contribs)

Adding unsourced claims multiple times using a registered account and an IP [284]; [285]; [286]; followed by these claims and references to legal procedure: [287]; [288]; [289]; [290]; [291]; [292]. At issue is the matter of who founded the company by sketching an idea on a cocktail napkin. The current content isn't sourced, and the only sources I found rely on interviews with Mr. Ray. Perhaps the short term solution would be to remove that pending a third party source. But the COI account is pushing a bit hard, and may require further attention from an administrator. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• See also this press release of a week ago: [293], in which the editor is listed as "PR agency authorized to represent Nicole Seibert." 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• Note that I sent an email to legal a few dozen minutes ago. Vermont (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Why? This is standard laughable legal mumbo-jumbo -- nothing worth bothering anyone about. EEng 04:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Wow, it's been a long time since we had an ANI thread involving the phrase She has filed for a legal motion to retrieve her napkin [294]. How come people claiming to be lawyers and PR consultants are always borderline illiterate? EEng 04:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Much of it may be mumbo-jumbo but this statement is a clear legal threat:

"I will be making a formal copyright claim and DMCA notice to the ISP who hosts the site under copyright claim. Now by law they must remove the site until it is fixed or rectified by wiki thats not my issue thats wiki's issue. I follow the law and so does Mrs. Seibert and that is why this is being done."

Accordingly, I have blocked the editor. It is amusing that he thinks the #5 website in the world is hosted by an ISP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What does that even mean? I told him it would be best to take such matters up with the Foundation. He can send them all the legalese he wants.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. 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:72bikers Accusations of harassment

72bikers has "banned" a number of users from their talk page, asking them not to post warnings of any sort. An ANI discussion in May determined that "banned" editors may post a single warning per incident on 72bikers' talk page. However, they have continued to accuse editors who do so of harassment, violating policy and "lacking the ability to judge what is a actual violation". Recent examples are [295] [296]. I would ask that 72bikers either substantiate these claims of harassment or stop making these accusations. I would certainly welcome any examination of my own behavior, as I feel that this (which triggered an accusation of violating policy and "optics of harassment") is perfectly legitimate and acceptable warning. –dlthewave ☎ 20:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The question here is why do people feel that they need to post warnings on their page? If they feel they have to then there's obviously a reason and that should be looked into as more import than 72biker's responses. Is there another behavioural issue here? Canterbury Tail talk 21:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave - Yes, 72bikers can ask you not to post on their user talk page - and yes, it's generally expected that the user's wish is honored when such a request is given. We can't force a user to rescind their request for other editors to leave their user talk page alone, nor can we force a user to rescind accusations of harassment. If the user doesn't want you to communicate concerns, warnings, violations of policy, etc. directly to them first - fine. Taking concerns directly to the editor is a courteous thing to do, and if he doesn't want that, it's his prerogative. Just do what the guidelines state, which is to bring it to an administrator or admin noticeboard to have handled. If the only concern you're raising here is regarding 72bikers accusations and requests for others to not edit his talk page, there's not much we can do. Aside from this, are there other concerns that you need to discuss here regarding this user? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I feel that I've been following the consensus from the previous ANI discussion linked above, yet 72Bikers continues to accuse me of harassment and policy violations not just once but every time I post a legitimate warning. I feel that these accusations are inappropriate, unfounded and distracting and I would like 72Bikers to stop making them per WP:ASPERSIONS. Since I'm not supposed to post this at their talk page, I am asking for help here. –dlthewave ☎ 22:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have idea. How about you stop editing his talk page. Also, since your fully aware of and took part in the previous discussion regarding his talk page, this appears to be an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP.--RAF910 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and not respond in a sarcastic tone, please. It's not going to help the user nor will it resolve his frustrations. We need to be patient, listen, and try and help as much as we can if possible. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) X 2 Dlthewave - I would do your best just to ignore the accusations and don't let them get to your emotions, and to just leave the user's talk page alone if his responses bother you. If you know that you're doing the right thing and in good faith, you're addressing legitimate issues, and doing your best to follow policy and what was decided in the last ANI discussion, it shouldn't bother you if he throws "harassment" at you and what-not. He's not the user who will ultimately decide what constitutes harassment or not. If the user chooses not to take your warnings to heart, then he's the one whose losing out - not you. That being said, is this user continuing to repeatedly make the same edits in violation of policy that you warned the user about? Is there something outside of the harassment accusations that should be discussed regarding this user's edits or compliance with policy? This is what we can help you with, and much more so than accusations being thrown around :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding those last questions, see here. That's just the latest incident in a long list. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would point out what editor Dlthewave said is not entirely correct. Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once. How is a warning that is not a actual policy violation and only in the opinion of the warning editor legitimate. I have ask this editor numerous times politely to not post on my talk page as to the two policies WP:HUSH and WP:NOBAN. I believe if this editor had legitimate cause he would have simple went to a noticeboard such as here the have me sanctioned. but it would seem even there view of actual policy violation flawed. I would also point out I did not directly say he was harassing me but simply the optic of what he was doing, given the history, might be perceived as such, as the result of this confirmed.

I would also point out this editor not very long ago started a discussion to do away with the policies that allowed a editor to requet that other do not post on there talk page. But not even one of the admins thought that was a good idea.

@Oshwah:, @Canterbury Tail:, as to whether or not I am being harassed, I would like to bring to attention there has just been another noticeboard complaint filed, that also appear to be fruitless [297]. Claiming he would not go to noticeboard if he could post warnings on my talk page. -72bikers (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@72bikers: "Its my understanding that only legitimate "required notices" such as for this noticeboard discussion be placed on a editors talk page and only once." Who told you that? I provided a link to an ANI consensus that says otherwise. –dlthewave ☎ 01:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers - I understand that the warnings left by other editors can be annoying and perhaps even aggravating, but the purpose behind such notifications is to allow editors who have concerns regarding possible issues that you're involved with to bring them directly to you so that it can be resolved if the concerns are correct, or explained and understood by the messenger if the concerns are wrong. I wouldn't consider such messages left in good faith an annoyance or an attempt to harass you, but a courteous thing to do before getting more users and administrators involved with the matter. If Dlthewave's warnings and concerns are incorrect, you should be able to respond and explain in a calm and civil manner why they're incorrect so that you're both at the same level of understanding and that things are indeed okay. If you respond by pushing those users away from your talk page and by telling them to stop editing it and leave you alone, you're only going to cause more frustration upon yourself if such concerns are legitimate and address real issues that need to be resolved. You mentioned that Dlthewave Waleswatcher made a report to AN3 that you believe is fruitless and without merit. Had you allowed Dlthewave to voice concerns regarding edit warring to you directly first (assuming that it's incorrect), you could have explained the discrepancy and resolved the matter right then and there. Because you've robbed yourself of allowing others to communicate with you directly by telling them to not edit your user talk page, you're now seeing a direct consequence of this action - they're going to report the matter(s) to the appropriate noticeboard(s) and you're going to have to deal with explaining things on those reports when asked about them. Compared to doing that and with all this in mind, doesn't it seem easier for everybody (including yourself) if you instead maintained an open communication policy on your talk page and you welcomed users to voice concerns and leave warnings so that you can discuss them peacefully before it becomes 'escalated' to a noticeboard? How you manage your user talk page and who can post messages and warnings to them is ultimately up to you - I obviously can't force you to do anything. I just want to help you to understand that you're making things harder on yourself in the long-term and in the end by keeping people who leave you warnings off your user talk page, and that being open, civil, and receptive to warnings, concerns, and criticism is the best way to handle such things and is ultimately much more easier on yourself :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah for explaining it better than I could. It was actually Waleswatcher who filed the AN3 report, but they were similarly banned by 72bikers and unable to discuss the issues before escalating. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave - Ah, my bad. I thought you were the creator of that AN3 report by mistake - please accept my apologies. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I wish it was that simple Oshwah, I truly due. But when things like this and much more [298] and [299] and this [300] in reference of me, its hard to see good intentions. When a editor with a adversarial view tries to chastise you and only post warnings if they did not have good enough proof to actually have you sanctioned, its hard to see the assumption of good faith. look I simply requested like many times before for him to post on my page, and I simply mentioned the optics of his actions and he came here to have me sanctioned. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to such thing, as the admins responding to Dlthewave request to do away with the policies that I presented with my request stated without it would swamp them with mostly trivial matter. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 04:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

72bikers - It sounds like we need to open a dialogue of communication between yourself and Dlthewave (and Waleswatcher as well), where you two openly come to an understanding of exactly what caused your initial frustrations (like what you pointed out above) so that you can allow these users to talk to you on your user talk page again and trust that they'll have good faith in mind and avoid the exact things that started this breakdown in communication to occur. Would you be willing to allow these users to post on your user talk page again so that they can reach out to you and talk to you in a civil manner and you and they can collaborate and work things out? You'll be able to share what's going on, what bothered you, and allow them to do the same. This is the best thing that you can do and for all of you - come to an agreement with them and let them communicate with you openly. I'm sure that one condition with them is that you won't accuse them of harassing you or that you won't make rude, uncivil, or bad-faith assumptions toward them. You'll obviously be able to have them agree to things you don't want to see either. What do you say? Can you give it a shot and see how this goes? Dlthewave? Waleswatcher? Are you two on board and okay with this too? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I would be open to dialogue and would suggest including Slatersteven if they are interested. My concern is that 72bikers has engaged in a pattern of both personal attacks/off-topic comments on the AR-15 style rifle talk page and DS/3RR violations in article space. I would like to arrive at a solution that allows us to address this disruption without provoking accusations of harassment and policy violation which draw the conversation away from the topic at hand. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what's being asked here, but I'm always open to dialog. For instance, I've explicitly given 72bikers permission to post on my talk page, even though I'm banned from theirs. With that said, it seems to me 72bikers' past and ongoing pattern of behavior calls for a temporary block or topic ban to allow them time to cool off and reflect on all this. But who knows, maybe a warning + more dialog would do the job. Waleswatcher (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Two of those are not on your talk page. Nor are they about any users posting here (or at the edit war thread). Now I( asked you directly on my talk page, and I am asking you here, would you rather have warnings posted on your talk page or just be reported without warning when you might have breached policy? Because what you are not going to have is to be allowed to breach policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I regularly question whether 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia - but this is an old issue. As per several previous trips to AN/I over this issue, users are free to issue standard statements and warnings on 72's page. 72 is free to delete those afterward and they should not be reinserted. 72 is free to ask users not to post more on that topic but users are free to raise new issues with 72 in the future even if he's "banned" them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I do believe 72bikers is here to build an encyclopedia. What I find is 72bikers does a poor job of articulating legitimate concerns. I don't agree with the idea that we should just ban people from our talk pages left and right. I agree with others here that in general its not a good idea to blanket ban people from out talk pages. But once such a prohibition has been requested it should be respected. I think 72bikers should do the following:

1. When posting to article talk pages, Be bright, be brief! Write out what you want to say, proof read it then cut the text in half (I don't always practice what I preach...).
2. Don't beat the horse (alive or dead). Sometimes people don't answer the questions we ask. You can't force them to. Consider that your audience isn't always the person who disagrees (and may, in good faith, never agree). Use a coherent argument to convince the undecided or new to the discussion (again, bright and brief really helps).
3. Discuss first, edit last. This one applies to other editors as well. If a section of content is the subject of a current talk page disagreement, don't change it! Propose changes on the talk page. Try to resist the urge to revert (again my practice and preaching aren't fully coherent). When we are in a consensus gridlock trying to figure out how to balance this or that, it doesn't help when someone adds some new content without proposing the edit first. It almost certainly will result in a number of article changes/reversions and editor frustration. Just propose it first!

These suggestions apply to myself and other editors as well. Springee (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The truth is that, since I've got back from my wikibreak, I've seen more WP:3RR and WP:AN/I threads opened about 72bikers than any other editor I've interacted with. They've had plenty of warnings regarding their comportment, with the talk page issue being one of them. And while many of those cases have been marginal, 72 has pulled 2 blocks in 2018 for edit warring and yet continues to push the line of EW behaviour often, while remaining disinclined to discuss their behaviour on their own user talk page - which inevitably spills out into the boards with additional marginal edit warring accusations, and complaints to AN/I. So yeah, there's some WP:NOTHERE behaviour going on. Whether admins consider it severe enough to be actionable is another issue, but what it comes down to is that 72bikers is often a obstruction to resolving challenging and fraught content disputes rather than a participant. And that's a problem. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: From where I sit, 72bikers' pattern of behavior clearly fits multiple elements of WP:NOTHERE: battleground behavior (banning users from their talk page, accusing them of harassment, arguing tooth and nail over just about every edit from an editor they disagree with), repeated warnings and blocks, little interest in collaboration (even with like-minded editors, from what I've seen), and disruptive edits.

For a recent example of that last, when dlthewave tried to get some input on the issues at AR-15 style rifle, 72bikers posted multiple WP:TEXTWALLs like this, this, and this that have clogged the discussion to the point it's almost impossible to read (especially for anyone new to this that might actually have provided a fresh perspective). Those WOTs are often riddled with typos to the point they're hard to parse, and more importantly they are very long and usually miss the point under discussion. I don't know to what degree that's intentional, but it's certainly disruptive. Then there's the kneejerk reverts on anything they disagree with (see here for the latest of that, including a revert of my removal of a duplicate reference), usually followed by more walls of text on the talk page.

Since multiple warnings and short blocks don't seem to have helped, it seems to me a longer block or topic ban might be called for. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I dislike the idea of dragging different accusations into an ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

WW, this seems like a self serving position on your part. Some of the edits in question were reversions of material that you added in a way that, while not a bright line violation, were not helpful. For example, here [[301]] you add material to a section that is an area of active disagreement. You didn't propose the material or change first. You should have known better given your involvement in the on going discussions. Here you revert material that 72bikers added a while back and that had been stable [[302]]. I can see how an editor might feel you were targeting their work since you didn't discuss this removal first (discussion added after removal [[303]]). If we go a ways back here you are saying that WP:ONUS to remove new content is on the editor who wishes to remove rather than the editor who is doing the adding (the opposite is true) [[304]]. 72bikers generally isn't initiating the controversial changes, you have initiated several. It creates a certain amount of baiting a trap by antagonizing targeting some of his edits and then ignoring consensus when adding edits that can't reasonably assume wouldn't be controversial. Springee (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

And your comment seems equally self-serving on your part, doesn't it? As seems to be typical for you, your comment is riddled with falsehoods and misrepresentations (see this for a particularly egregious recent example of such misplaced accusations). But this really isn't about me, or you, so I'll not respond further. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's be fair; most people fall for a joe-jobber once before they notice the pattern of behaviour. After all, most people don't have checkuser authority. I wouldn't lean on this too hard as any sort of blemish on Springee's record. They walked back the complaint immediately upon being told it was a joe-jobber and while they and I may not often see eye to eye, they're a decent editor and, unlike 72bikers, I wouldn't expect to see them up before AN/I or 3RR as they understand and adhere to Wikipedia norms well. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed TBAN for WO1977

As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rah Crawford (2nd nomination):

In addition to being deleted once already, this was recreated as a draft, which was declined three times. The author then copy-pasted the text of the draft to mainspace, and arranged for the draft to be deleted by tagging it with template:db-g7. While it's true that WP:AfC is an optional process, asking people to spend their time reviewing your work, then ignoring their input and moving it to mainspace anyway is WP:GAMING the system. Not to mention that the copy-paste and history deletion technically makes this a copyvio. Edit comments (currently deleted) like, Sulfurboy mentioned it was too close to the wording on another site - That bio was submitted at the same time as we submitted to Wikipedia it is by the same writer. Although, I did make many changes to this in order to not look like it was plagiarized. :) make it clear that there's undisclosed WP:COI.

Rather than just indef blocking User:WO1977 as WP:NOTHERE (which I think would be justified), I'd like to try the less draconian measure of a TBAN against editing any topic, broadly construed, related to Rah Crawford. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it isn't WP:AfC that is the problem, but this was deleted. Shouldn't it have had to go through Wikipedia:Deletion review to recreate it? For instance if he found "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," then that would be the appropriate process right? As far as I can tell he never went through that process. The delete on the userspace draft (if he was the primary author) would seem to be ok (I don't know if he was the primary author as I cannot see it), likewise if he was the author of the userspace version, copying that to article space isn't a copyvio -Obsidi (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• WO1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  Rah Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  I've closed the AFD as delete, and also creation-protected the article given concerns here and at the AFD. Suggest no action; this single-purpose account is likely to move on naturally. AGK ■ 11:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Genre warring again

BadboyOli (talk · contribs) has been changing genres without consensus, with or without reliable sources for a few days now and has not heeded multiple warnings. Reporting here because disruptive editing such as genre warring have been increasingly denied at WP:AIV. I reported to AIV but I can't tract down what happened to it. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 13:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No, you were told in the edit summary that club wasn't sourced ergo it was removed, like I said, please add a source to it and then it can stay… BadboyOli (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Ugh... another genre war? As best I can see both of you are slow-motion edit warring, and you need to work this out on the relevant talkpages and/or through dispute resolution. If it continues, to stop it I'll protect any necessary pages at whatever wrong version it's at. (And I'm really considering taking action on a Fergie song and a Mariah Carey song besides trying to condemn them to damnatio memoriae... this place makes one do strange things) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Propose Wikipedia sets a policy of not commenting on subjective elements of creative works such as genre. Simonm223 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC about not including genres in infboxes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Request for comment on removing genres from musician, album, and song infoboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put my comment there. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits related to adding or removing verified content from infoboxes are under discretionary sanctions. There's no reason they can't be enforced against parties engaged in genre-warring, if it's focused around the infobox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

• I declined the original AIV request – that is what happened to it. At the time, I considered going on to warn @FlightTime Phone. AGK ■ 11:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Pages stuck in vandal's category

The following discussion is closed. 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 vandal created this nonsense category, and as of this moment a number of (mostly user) pages are still showing as in the category. I tried purging the page but it did not work. Can someone get the pages removed? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like it was being transcluded onto those pages from the CSD report (or maybe some other admin report) that all of those pages are transcluding. Try purging Category:Candidates for speedy deletion or its subcategories. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The vandal added the category to Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, and then it got transcluded onto all those pages that were transcluding the AIV report. It's been fixed, it'll probably just take a bit for the servers to catch up. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector, yep, sure enough looks like the servers have caught up. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Topic ban violation by DanielPenfield

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

---

DanielPenfield is topic-banned from ""any edits involving talk-page archiving, broadly construed (own talk-page exempt)" (see this ANI discussion). He has violated this ban twice now at Talk:MetLife on 17 September and at Zilog Z80 just now. I think a block is warranted, but I am arguably too involved to take this action. Graham87 04:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the latter edit is particularly ironic. Pinging @Jauerback:, who reverted the other topic ban violation. Graham87 04:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems pretty open-and-shut. The most recent violation was made just now - I see no issues with applying a block for violating it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Thanks very much. Let's hope this helps some. Graham87 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Graham87 - You're welcome. And yes, I definitely hope this block helps the user to take their topic ban seriously and to avoid violating it at all times. Only time will tell... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I knew he violated his topic ban violation a few weeks ago, but I was hoping that a simple warning/reminder would be sufficient at the time. I guess I was wrong. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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